BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No. B 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 with Articles and of the Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Maxine Shabsove, Elevation Architects Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Jim Laughlin, Deputy Chief Building Official, Toronto, to determine whether the installed guards comprised of tempered glass panels attached to railing posts at the stairs of a two storey residential building, provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and of Division B of the Building Code at 16 Sears St, Toronto Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Maxine Shabsove Elevation Architects Inc Toronto, ON Jim Laughlin Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto Tony Chow, Chair Gary Burtch Rick Florio Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING June 17, 2010 DATE OF RULING June 17, 2010 APPEARANCES David Reale Reale Born Inc Mississauga, ON Agent for the Applicant Martin Elksnitis Building Inspector City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged code deficiencies at 16 Sears St, Toronto Ontario. The subject building is a 2 storey, Group C occupancy building with a building area of m². The construction in dispute involves the height of the as-installed guard located at the stairs within the dwelling unit and whether or not the height of the guard facilitates climbing. The subject guards are comprised of clear tempered glass panels that are attached to railing posts. The tempered glass panels have been constructed to a height of 787 mm. However, the total guard height as-constructed is 890 mm above the stair nosing. Article of the Building Code requires guards shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening will facilitate climbing. Sentence (2) of the 2009 updated version of the 2006 Building Code requires all guards within dwelling units not to be less than 900 mm (2ft 11 in) high. However, 900 mm does not equate to 2 feet 11 inches. The Applicant in this case chose to build to 2 feet and 11 inches or 890 mm. The dispute focuses on whether the design of the as-constructed guard meets the required guard height outlined in Article and further, whether the as-installed stair guard present a hazard and facilitate climbing. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Article Height of Guards (1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (4), all guards shall be not less than mm high. (2) All guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 900 mm high (2ft 11 in) high. (3) Exterior guards serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than 900 mm high where the walking surface served by the guard is not more than mm above the finished ground level. (4) Guards for flights of steps, except in required exit stairs, shall be not less than 900 mm high. (5) The height of guards for flights of steps shall be measured vertically from the top of the guard to a line drawn through the leading edge of the treads served by the guard. Article Design to Prevent Climbing (1) Guards required by Article , except those in industrial occupancies and where it can be shown that the location and size of openings do not represent a hazard, shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening will facilitate climbing. (2) Guards shall be deemed to comply with Sentence (1) where any elements protruding from the vertical and located within the area between 140 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard, (a) are located more than 450 mm horizontally and vertically from each other, (b) provide not more than 15 mm horizontal offset, (c) do not provide a toe-space more than 45 mm horizontally and 20 mm vertically, or (d) present more than a 1-in-2 slope on the offset.

3 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that there is some ambiguity in the Building Code concerning the dimensions of the guard height. The Agent explained that Sentence (2) of the Building Code stipulates that all guards within dwelling units shall not be less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) high, providing both a metric and an imperial measurement for the minimum required guard height. The Applicant argued that 900 mm translates into inches, almost a ½ inch less than the imperial dimension of 2 ft 11 in provided in Sentence (2). The Agent submitted that the subject guard had been constructed to meet the 2 ft 11 in requirement stated in the Code, which translates to 889 mm. The Agent explained that he had been hired to design, manufacture and install the subject guard. Further, he explained that he had submitted engineered approved drawings certifying that the design complies with the Building Code. However upon inspection, the Agent reported that the inspector had deemed the height of the guard below the Code requirement and further that a child could climb over the guard. The Agent argued that the subject guard has been built to the stipulated 2 ft 11 in as required by Code and therefore, was in full compliance with Article The Agent also argued that the in his opinion the guard, as built, was not easily climbable and did not present a hazard. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that in his view, the as-constructed guard facilitates climbing because the top of the tempered glass, the top rail and the handrail are below the required 900 mm stipulated in Article of the Building Code. Further, the Designate submitted that the Building Code is a metric Code, and it is the metric measurements that should be considered in the design and construction of the guards. In this case, it has been designed to the imperial measurement and therefore, does not strictly comply with the Code. Upon inspection, the Designate submitted that the total guard height above the stair nosing is 880 mm. The Designate submitted there is a gap at the bottom stringer and another gap of 20 mm between the top rail and hand rail and his opinion, a foot hold could be gained and the possibility for climbing the guard exists, although admittedly not considered to be seriously unsafe. The Designate submitted that he did not believe the stairs were seriously unsafe, however, as built could not approve them as they did not technically comply with the Code. He also submitted that he had supported the Applicant s application to the Commission for a ruling in the matter. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the installed guards comprised of tempered glass panels attached to railing posts at the stairs of a two storey residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles and of Division B of the Building Code at 16 Sears St, Toronto Ontario.

4 6. Reasons i) Regarding height of guards Sentence (2) of Division B of the Building Code states, All guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) high. The Commission heard that the installed guard located within the subject dwelling unit has been constructed to a height of 2 feet 11 inches or 890 mm. It is the Commission s opinion that the subject guard sufficiently complies with Sentence (2), as the installed guard meets the imperial measurement stated in the Code. ii) Sentence (1) of Division B states, Guards required by Article , except those in industrial occupancies and where it can be shown that the location and size of openings do not represent a hazard, shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening will facilitate climbing. It is the Commission s opinion that the location and size of openings of the subject guard do not represent a hazard and further, do not facilitate climbing.

5 Dated at Toronto this 17 th day in the month of June in the year 2010 for application number B Tony Chow, Chair Gary Burtch Rick Florio