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 Clause (1)(a) of O. Reg. 583/83 and Sentence (1) and Article of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Paul and Linda Clement, property owners, for the resolution of a dispute with Philip Gerrard, Chief Building Official, Township of North Grenville, to determine whether the compensating construction offered in an existing, 2 storey, 14 unit apartment building where the length of dead-end corridors exceeds the permitted maximum, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(a) of the 1983 Ontario Building Code when considering Sentence (1) and Article of the 1997 Ontario Building Code, at 101 Joseph Street, Township of North Grenville, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Paul and Linda Clement Property owners Vars, Ontario Philip Gerrard Chief Building Official Township of North Grenville Len King, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 21, 2002 DATE OF RULING November 21, 2002 APPEARANCES David Connelly Dacon Management Services Orleans, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Philip Gerrard Chief Building Official Township of North Grenville The Respondent J. Peter Vice Barristers & Solicitors Vice & Hunter Solicitor for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Paul and Linda Clement, property owners, have received an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, pertaining to certain alleged deficiencies including the existing dead-end corridor configuration at 101 Joseph Street, Township of North Grenville, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is the owner of a two storey apartment building constructed in The structure has a building area of 967 m 2, is comprised of a combination of noncombustible and combustible construction and is equipped with a fire alarm system. It has a Group C major occupancy classification and also incorporates a storage garage, classified as an F3 occupancy. The item specific to this dispute is the length of the existing dead-end corridors on the first and second floors. The building is essentially rectangular in shape with the entrance situated approximately at the mid-point of the structure. The stairs and elevators serving the second floor are also situated in the middle of the building with a single public corridor extending in both directions from this central area. As a result, on both floors the corridors measure approximately 13.7 m and terminate at a dead-end. No alternate exit is provided at or near the ends of these corridors, however, the ground floor units each have an exit directly to the exterior. Occupancy permits were issued for this building at the time of construction in 1985, however upon recent review by the municipality and discovery of this situation, an unsafe order was issued. In response to this order the Applicant is proposing to install 45 minute rated doors and frames in one hour rated partitions to subdivide the existing corridors. The partitions would run from floor level to the underside of the existing ceiling. The doors are proposed to be equipped with accessible egress latching hardware and automatic closing devices. The aim of this proposal is to shorten the dead-end portion of the corridor running from the access to exit at the mid-point of the building to the entrance of the partitions. In addition, as a result of the proposed partitions, semi-private vestibule areas will be created at the ends of the existing corridors. The Applicant is proposing to pressurize these vestibules and protect the pressurization system by one hour rated construction. In addition, an exit light and a smoke detector will be installed in each vestibule and the ceiling structures above the vestibules will be reinforced to resist collapse. Although the Applicant is prepared to construct these vestibules on both the first and second floors in response to the unsafe order, it is argued that because each dwelling unit on the ground floor has its own exit to the exterior, only the second storey would need to altered to address any unsafe situation. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed compensating construction offered in a 17 year old building where the length of the existing dead-end corridors exceeds the permitted maximum will provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(a) of the 1983 Ontario Building Code (OBC) when considering Sentence (1) and Article of the current OBC.

3 -3- Clause (1)(a) mandates that dead-end corridors are not to exceed 6 m in length. The corridors on both the first and second floor were constructed in 1985 and measure approximately 13.7 m in length, terminating at a dead-end where no second and separate means of egress is provided. An occupancy permit was issued by the municipality at the time of construction and, until recently, no issue with respect to this existing situation had been raised. Upon recent inspection, the deficiency was noted and an Order to remedy the perceived unsafe situation was issued. As a result of this Order, as described above, the Applicant has proposed to compartmentalize the existing hallways to create shorter dead-end corridors measuring approximately 6 m in both directions from the point of access to exit. In respect to the renovation of an existing building Sentence (1) requires that the performance of the building after construction shall not be less than the performance level prior to construction. Furthermore, when considering alteration of an existing building, Article permits the use of alternative measures where the Chief Building Official (CBO) (or alternatively the Building Code Commission under appeal) is satisfied that compliance with other parts of the code may be impractical because of construction difficulties or may be detrimental to the preservation of a heritage structure. Moreover, the CBO must be satisfied that the performance level of the building after use of the alternative measures shall not be less than the performance level of the building prior to construction. As this is an existing building, falling under the purview of Part 11 of the Code, the Applicant has proposed the use of alternative measures to address the dead-end corridor issue identified in the Order to Remedy Unsafe Building issued by the municipality. The Applicant s position is that the proposed construction will not reduce the performance level of the existing building and that, to require strict compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the 1983 OBC is not practical because of the construction difficulties and cost involved. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code 1983 Ontario Building Code, O.Reg. 583/ (1) Except for corridors served by a single exit as described in Sentence (5), a dead-end public corridor is permitted in a residential occupancy where (a) it does not exceed 6 m in the distance of travel from the most remote point of the dead-end portion to a point where it is possible to go in opposite directions to each of 2 separate exits, and 1997 Ontario Building Code, O.Reg. 403/ Performance Level (1) The performance level of a building after construction shall not be less than the performance level of the building prior to construction Alternative Measures (1) An alternative measure may be utilized where the chief building official is satisfied that (a) compliance with the requirement of Part 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 of the Code or with the compliance alternative, as the case may be, is impracticable because (i) of structural or construction difficulties, or (ii) it is detrimental to the preservation of a heritage building, and

4 -4- (b) the performance level of the building after the use of the alternative measure shall not be less than the performance level of the building prior to construction. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant provided the Commission with some background on the subject building, advising that it was constructed in 1985 and occupied since that time as rental accommodation. He submitted that permits had been obtained by the original permit applicant and when his client purchased the property they were advised that there were no outstanding work orders that would have to be addressed. It was not until his client contemplated converting the building into condominium units that any concern was raised. This is because when considering the conversion, the Applicant requested an inspection from the municipality and it was then that a number of deficiencies were noted. Shortly after the inspection an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building was issued outlining a number of Code violations. The Agent emphasized however, that no new construction was being proposed for the building. They were simply investigating the possibility of converting the rental units to condominium ownership. The Agent questioned the validity of the Order but advised the Commission that steps had been taken to remedy many of the items identified by the municipality as being of concern. Notwithstanding their perception that errors have been committed by the municipality in relation to the issuance of the Order to Remedy Unsafe Building and any deficiencies with the order itself, the Applicants have prepared a proposal in an attempt to make the building safer. To address the safety issues associated with the dead-end corridor situation they are proposing to compartmentalize the areas, effectively creating shorter, more Code compliant, dead-end corridor portions and semi-private vestibules beyond the proposed partitions. Furthermore, to manage smoke movement in this area they are proposing to pressurize the vestibule areas that will be created. By doing so, the Agent submitted, the existing situation will be improved and sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of the Code will be achieved. When questioned by the Respondent as to whether the proposed construction would provide an equal level of safety as would strict compliance with the Code requirements, the Agent acknowledged that it would not be equivalent. He emphasized, however, that this was an existing building for which building and occupancy permits had been obtained. He acknowledge the options for compliance suggested by the municipality but submitted that the proposed compensation being offered here, would be an improvement to the existing situation and would not reduce the performance level of the building. This is not a case of new construction, he argued, simply a renovation of an existing building in response to an Order that was arguably deficient. He maintained that to comply with 1983 Code requirements, as suggested by the municipality, would be both onerous and impractical at this point in time, causing disruption to tenants of this fully occupied building. In support of the proposed remedy the Agent advised the Commission that the existing structural elements of the building, excepting the roof trusses, are non-combustible, and therefore add no fuel to a fire. The Code however, allows the entire structure to be of combustible construction. As a second point the Agent submitted that all corridor walls, exit stair walls, exterior bearing walls and demising walls include 8" concrete block, and can safely be assumed as having a 1 hour fire resistance rating. In each respect, then these walls exceed the Code, which permits 45 minute separations. Furthermore, the agent advised that the 8" hollow concrete floor plans, are non-combustible, and according to the shop drawings by Coreslab included in the file, provide a fire resistance rating of 2 hours. The Agent submitted that the existing ground floor units which are affected by the dead end corridor

5 -5- situation are all provided with a second and separate means of egress by way of patio doors leading directly to the exterior of the building. In this regard, the Agent submitted that the dead-end corridors on the ground floor are permissible when considering Sentences (9) and (7) of the OBC. Furthermore, while acknowledging that the second floor units are not similarly equipped with a separate means of egress, the Agent submitted that each unit is provided with an existing balcony that may function as an area of refuge to occupants of that suite. These areas of refuge, he argued, would allow for the safe evacuation of all second floor apartments, roughly equivalent in value to a second egress for each tenancy. In summation, the Agent submitted that the proposed compensating measures would enhance life safety in this existing building, while avoiding the expensive difficult, impractical and unattractive options suggested by the Respondent. 6. Respondent s Position Legal Counsel for the Respondent provided the Commission with further background information acknowledging that the original permits were issued in error in As a result of this error a claim was filed by the Applicant against the municipality and a settlement had been reached on the basis of the total cost to rectify as well as numerous and sundry costs for the relocation and disruption of tenants during the construction. Based on this settlement, he advised that the municipality has provided the Applicant with options to achieve compliance in respect to the excessive length of the dead-end. Instead, the Applicant has brought forward a number of proposals including the use of alternative measures instead of satisfying the prescriptive Part 3 requirements of the 1983 Code. The Respondent submitted that, upon consideration of the subject proposal, it was his opinion that it will not satisfactorily comply with the OBC requirements. He submitted that to approve the use of alternative measures, he as the CBO must be satisfied of two things. Namely, that it would be impractical to comply with the Code requirements and that the performance level of the building will be at least equal to the performance level of the building prior to construction. In both regards the Respondent submitted that the Applicant s proposal fails. He stated that there has been no proof offered by the Applicant as to the impracticality of complying with the Code nor, in his opinion, will the proposal offer an equivalent level of safety as that of a Code compliant structure. In response to the specific aspects of the proposal the Respondent offered the following comments. In respect to consideration of the second floor balconies as areas of refuge the Respondent submitted that, (w)hile the floor assembly (Coreslab) of the existing balconies may provide adequate protection from exposure to heat and flame from the fire compartment below, it wouldn t meet the intent of protection from smoke emanating from the lower unit. Moreover he suggested that the balconies would have to be fire-separated from the remainder of the building which would not be accomplished by this existing open balcony situation. In reference to the pressurized vestibules being proposed to shorten the dead-end portions of the corridors the Respondent submitted that the creation of this separation does not redefine that portion of the hallway within the vestibule area. The vestibule would still form part of the dead-end corridor and therefore exceed the permitted length without providing an alternate means of exit. Furthermore, notwithstanding the Applicant s request for relief under the provisions of Article , the acceptance of a Compliance Alterative is dependent upon the Applicant meeting both tests; i.e. not only that there is an acceptable alternative to full Code compliance, but that Code compliance cannot be achieved since it is impractical because of structural or construction difficulties (emphasis added). The

6 -6- Respondent argued that the Applicant had already been fully compensated for the rectification of the outstanding deficiencies, to full compliance with the 1983 Building Code. In his opinion the proposal put forth here is not better than or equal to those prescriptive requirements and should, therefore, be rejected. In summation, the Respondent emphasized that the Order that had been issued came as a result of a request by the Applicant for an inspection of the structure when they were considering the conversion of the building into a condominium. It was determined at the time that a number of Code violations existed and that, as a result, the building was unsafe. Moreover, one of the options that had been provided to the Applicant as a result of the claim that was filed, should be implemented to bring the building into compliance with the 1983 OBC, which applied at the time of construction. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the provision of two pressurized vestibules on the second floor of the building to compensate for the length of the existing dead-end corridors will provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(a) of O. Reg. 583/83 (1983 Ontario Building Code) when considering Sentence (1) and Article of the 1997 Ontario Building Code on condition that: a) The doors to the two second floor vestibules are to be equipped with magnetic hold open devices which will release upon activation of the fire alarm system. 8. Reasons i) The proposal to create two pressurized vestibules on the second floor, effectively reducing the length of the dead-end corridors, will improve the existing corridor system in the 17 year old building that was originally approved by the municipality. The provisions of Sentence (1) will be satisfied in that the performance level after construction will exceed the performance level of the existing building. ii) iii) iv) The existing building is primarily of noncombustible construction with the exception of the roof trusses. The corridor walls have a one hour fire resistance rating which exceeds the 45 minute Code requirement. Likewise, the concrete floor construction provides a fire rating in excess of that required by the OBC. The balconies of the second floor residential suites can be considered to function as areas of refuge to occupants of those units. v) First storey units have direct access to the exterior providing occupants of these units with an alternate means of exit.

7 -7- Dated at Toronto this 21st day in the month of November in the year 2002 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt