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 Clauses (1)(a) and (b), Sentence (1) and Clauses (1)(a) and (b) of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Albert Shetler, Homeowner, for the resolution of a dispute with Kirk Livingston, Chief Building Official, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, to determine whether the proposal to provide windows, which are not certified to CAN/CSA- A440, for a new addition to an existing Group C, residential dwelling provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses (1)(a) and (b), Sentence (1) and Clauses (1)(a) and (b) of Division B of the Building Code at RR # 2, Lucknow, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Albert Shetler Homeowner Lucknow, ON Kirk Livingston Chief Building Official Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Tony Chow, Chair Gary Burtch Prabhakar Mahant Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING December 2, 2010 DATE OF RULING December 2, 2010 APPEARANCES Albert Shetler Homeowner Lucknow, ON The Applicant Kirk Livingston Chief Building Official Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh The Respondent

2 RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a two storey 84 m² addition on the north side of an existing single storey residential building. The subject building is an existing single detached, single storey residential dwelling of approximately m². The Applicant has proposed to build a 2 storey addition to the north side of the existing house along with a second storey addition over the existing dwelling. The addition will be approximately 84 m² building area. The subject house is not provided with hydro electricity, nor is the temperature inside the house regulated. The house is instead heated using wood and wood burning appliances. The construction in dispute revolves around the windows proposed for the new addition. Article of the Building Code requires windows to conform to CAN/CSA-A440 Windows, and CAN/CSA-A440.1, User Selection Guide to CSA Standard CAN/CSA-A Windows. Article of the Code also requires that the overall coefficient of heat transfer required for windows in a residential occupancy to be determined in conformance with CAN/CSA-A440.2, Energy Performance Evaluation of Windows and Sliding Glass Doors. Further the Code requires under Article that all windows that separate heated space from unheated space to have an overall coefficient of heat transfer of not more than 2.0 W/ m² C, or an energy rating of not less than, 17 for operable windows, and 27 for fixed windows. The dispute in this case, more specifically relates to the Applicant s proposal to install windows that do not conform to CAN/CSA-A440. The Applicant is proposing to construct and install wood framed, single pane, storm windows sealed with weather stripping, over wood framed, single pane, operable windows for the new addition. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Window Standard (1) Windows shall conform to, (a) CAN/CSA-A440, Windows, and (b) the CAN/CSA-A440.1, User Selection Guide to CSA Standard CAN/CSA-A Windows Residential Windows and Sliding Glass Doors (1) The energy rating and the overall coefficient of heat transfer required for windows and sliding glass doors in a residential occupancy shall be determined in conformance with CAN/CSA-A440.2, Energy Performance Evaluation of Windows and Sliding Glass Doors Thermal Resistance of Windows (1) Except as permitted in Sentence (2), all windows that separate heated space from unheated space shall have, (a) an overall coefficient of heat transfer of not more than 2.0 W/ m² C, or (b) an energy rating of not less than,

3 (i) 17 for operable windows, and (ii) 27 for fixed windows. 3. Applicant s Position The Applicant submitted that he is a member of the Old Order Amish religion and that their church is based on a strong belief that their way of life handed down from generation to generation must be maintained. The Applicant submitted that strongest tenet of this faith is that its community remain self-sustaining in that they are able to produce all the necessities of their day to day lives within their own community, thereby creating their own jobs and having neighbour rely upon neighbour. The Applicant added that his religious community produce and preserve its own food, make its own clothing, build buggies for their own transportation, grow and feed their own livestock, and build their own furniture, homes and barns, in keeping with the tradition of their forefathers. The Applicant submitted that in all aspects of their lifestyle, in addition to being self-sustaining, being environmentally conscious is of utmost importance. The Applicant stated that hydro is not used in their homes, nor is the temperature inside the house regulated, as homes are heated using wood burning stoves. The Applicant submitted that the wood is a renewable resource and is supplied by their land. The Applicant submitted that thermal vinyl pane windows are considered to be more worldly or modern and further; the ability to construct their own wood framed windows, in addition to adhering to their traditional way of life, provides work for their community. In support of his application to the Commission, the Applicant explained that he would install wood framed, single pane, storm windows sealed with weather stripping, over the wood framed, single pane, operable windows in the new addition. Further, in response to questions, the Applicant agreed that at least one of the second storey bedroom windows in the new addition would be provided with an operable storm window meeting the sizing requirements set out in Sentence (1) of the Building Code. In summary, the Applicant argued that the proposed single glazed wood frame window assemblies with additional storm windows would achieve a similar level of performance as required by the Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the Applicant would like to install non-approved windows in the new addition of his dwelling. The Respondent explained that at the time of permit application the Applicant had been advised that the proposed windows would need to comply with the requirements of the Building Code. The Respondent stated that in his view the proposed window assemblies do not meet Clauses (1)(a) and (b), Sentence (1) and Clauses (1)(a) and (b) of Division B of the Building Code. More specifically, the Respondent maintained that Article of the Building Code requires windows to conform to CAN/CSA-A440 Windows, and CAN/CSA- A440.1, User Selection Guide to CSA Standard CAN/CSA-A Windows, and the subject windows are not listed, labelled or CSA approved, they do not comply with the Code s requirements.

4 Further the Respondent submitted that he had concerns over condensation on the windows resulting in possible rotting of the wooden window sills. The Respondent also added that if inoperable storm windows were installed over the single paned wood framed windows then egress from the second storey of the building would be an issue. He explained that the Code requires that every floor level containing a bedroom in a suite must have direct access to the outside either by a door or window, as per the requirements of Article In this case, there is no door on the second storey of the addition leading to the outside, therefore, the subject proposal to install unopenable storm windows over the second storey windows, raises further concerns and contravenes the requirements the Code. The Respondent reported that in the subject community other Amish members have constructed additions and new dwellings and have installed window assemblies conforming to the referenced Code requirements. The Respondent argued that if these dwellings are sold to other parties in the future, it can be noted that compliance with the Code was achieved. The Respondent surmised that the subject windows, as currently proposed, do not meet the requirements of the Code. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to provide windows not certified to CAN/CSA-A440 for a new addition to an existing Group C, residential dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses (1)(a) and (b), Sentence (1) and Clauses (1)(a) and (b) of Division B of the Building Code at RR # 2, Lucknow, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) Functional statement F10 and Objective OS1.5 forming part of Sentence (1) of the Building Code applies where windows serve bedrooms. Functional statement F10 refers to the facilitation of the timely movement of persons to a safe place in an emergency and OS1.5 refers to the exposure of persons to an unacceptable risk of injury due to fire caused by persons being delayed or impeded from moving to a safe place during an emergency. The Commission heard that the owner of the home will install wood framed, single pane, storm windows sealed with weather stripping, over the wood framed, single pane, operable windows in the new addition. Further, the Commission heard that at least one of the second storey bedroom windows in the new addition will be provided with an operable storm window meeting the sizing requirements set out in Sentence (1) of the Building Code. ii) Functional statement F131 and Objective OR2 forming part of Sentence (1) of the Building Code refers to limiting excessive use of energy consumption and exposing natural resources to an unacceptable risk of depletion. The Commission heard that the subject house is not provided with hydro electricity, nor is the temperature inside the house regulated. The Commission was advised that the only energy source used for heating the home is wood, considered to be a renewable resource, and that is supplied on site from the owner s property. iii) It is the Commission s opinion that the single glazed wood frame window assemblies with the addition of the storm widows sealed with weather stripping all the way around the inside of the storm windows, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Code.

5 Dated at Toronto this 2 nd in the month of December in the year 2010 for application number B Tony Chow, Chair Gary Burtch Prabhakar Mahant