BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF in Article of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Drs. Bishop & Marshall, Optometrists, for resolution of a dispute with John Este, Chief Building Official, Town of Parry Sound, to determine whether the proposed use of wood siding, treated with a coating having a flame spread index of 20, on the west exterior wall of a Group D, business and personal services occupancy provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Building Code at 3 Albert Street, Parry Sound, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Drs. Bishop & Marshall Optometrists Parry Sound, ON John Este Chief Building Official Town of Parry Sound Len King,Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING May 5, 2005 DATE OF RULING May 5, 2005 APPEARANCES Dennis Latour Incon Construction Parry Sound, ON Agent for the Applicant John Este Chief Building Official Town of Parry Sound Designate for the Respondent

2 - 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, and is constructing an optometrist s office building at 3 Albert Street, Parry Sound, Ontario. The subject building is one storey in building height and approximately 285 m 2 in building area. The building is comprised of combustible construction material and is not equipped with fire alarm, standpipe and hose or sprinkler systems. The building is intended to be used as an optometrist s office and therefore has a Group D, business and personal services occupancy classification. The construction in dispute involves the exterior wall on the west side of the subject building, which is adjacent to a neighbouring property. The exposing building face, which has been constructed using typical wood frame construction, has been protected with a masonry façade from grade level to approximately 1 m above grade. The remainder of the exposing building face has been clad with pre-finished cedar siding. The exposing building face has an area of 64 m 2 and is located within a limiting distance of 3 m from the adjacent property. Article of the Code requires an exposing building face to be constructed in conformance with Table , which outlines the minimum construction requirements for exposing building faces. Based on the area of the exposing building face, the occupancy classification of the building, the limiting distance and the maximum percentage of unprotected openings, Table stipulates that the exposing building face be clad with noncombustible cladding. The Applicant is proposing to use wood siding treated with a coating having a flame spread index of 20 for the cladding of the west wall exposing building face. The issue in dispute between the parties pertains to the cladding requirements for the west wall. Specifically, whether the proposal to treat the exposing building face of the west wall of the building with a coating having a flame spread index of 20 will provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirements outlined in Article of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Construction of Exposing Building Face (1) Except as permitted in Sentence (2) and Articles to , each exposing building face and any exterior wall located above an exposing building face that encloses an attic or roof space shall be constructed in conformance with Table and Subsection (2) Cladding installed on exposing building faces and exterior walls located above exposing building faces that enclose an attic or roof space need not conform to Type of Cladding Required in Table provided (a) the limiting distance is not less than 600 mm (23 5 / 8 in), (b) the exposing building face is constructed with no unprotected openings, and (c) the cladding conforms to Clauses (3)(a) to (d).

3 Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that wood siding treated with a coating having a flame spread index of 20, in his opinion, provides sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. The Agent described the exposing building face, comprised of typical wood frame construction, as being clad with a stone façade from grade to approx 3 ft with wood siding from 3 ft to the underside of the soffit. He advised that wood siding is more aesthetically pleasing than aluminium siding and that is why it was chosen. He further advised the cost of applying the flame spread treatment is about the same as providing aluminium siding. The Agent stated that if a metal skin were applied to the wood siding then compliance with the Code would be achieved. He argued that the proposal to treat the wood siding with a coating in lieu of providing a metal skin, in his opinion, sufficiently complies with the intent of the Code. In summation, the Agent reiterated that it is his belief that the proposal provides a reasonable alternative to the prescriptive requirements of the Building Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the Building Code, by virtue of Table , requires the exposing building face to be clad with non-combustible cladding. The Designate advised the Commission that, in his view, the Code is quite clear and strict and therefore the municipality was unable to approve the Applicant s proposal. He stated that the Building Code makes no provision for substituting a treated wood product for metal siding, such as is proposed for this building. He indicated that the municipality s hands were tied in respect of allowing the substitution of treated wood in lieu of non-combustible cladding. In summary, the Designate reiterated that the Building Code is a minimum set of construction requirements and that the Article in question here is quite clear cut in this provision. He restated that the municipality was unable to approve the use of treated wood in place of metal siding. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed use of wood siding, treated with a coating having a flame spread index of 20, on the west exterior wall of a Group D, business and personal service occupancy provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Building Code at 3 Albert Street, Parry Sound, Ontario, on condition that: a) Two coats of an approved exterior grade intumescent fire retardant paint providing a combined flame spread rating of 5 will be applied to the west exterior wall of the building. b) The existing unprotected openings, being one door and one window, are to be equipped with rated closures providing a fire resistance rating of not less than 30 minutes. c) The west exterior wall of the building is not permitted to have additional unprotected openings.

4 Reasons i) The building is a one storey building, having an exposing building face 2.74 m in height. This west exterior wall is protected by a masonry façade which begins at grade and continues to a height of 1.07 m. ii) The exterior wood siding wall is setback 3.0 m from the property line and will be protected by two coats of an approved exterior grade intumescent fire retardant paint providing a flame spread rating of 5. iii) The existing openings, being one door and a window, will be equipped with rated closures providing a fire resistance rating of not less than 30 minutes.

5 - 5 - Dated at Toronto this 5 th day in the month of May in the year 2005 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie