Ruling No. 08-12-1186 Application No. 2008-03 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 Sentence 3.6.3.1.(2) of Regulation 403/97, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Tony Battista, The Residence at the Accolade Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Steve Franklin, Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed design of water supply piping between the City s water main and a 34 storey, residential building, where two water supply lines would connect to either side of a valve in the city water main, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4). of the 1997 Ontario Building Code at the Accolade Tower located at 1250 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Tony Battista The Residence at the Accolade Inc., Toronto, ON Steve Franklin Chief Building Official City of Toronto Tony Chow, Chair Marina Huissoon Susan Friedrich Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING March 20, 2008 DATE OF RULING April 18, 2008 APPEARANCES Tony Battista The Residence at the Accolade Inc., Toronto, ON Applicant Allan Larden Larden Muniak Consulting Inc., Toronto, ON Agent for the Applicant
Steve Mann Engineering Consultant Al Underhill & Associates Ltd. Richmond Hill, ON Designate for the Applicant Kamal Assaad Building Engineer City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent Ron Arnold Toronto Fire Services Plans Examiner City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent
-3- RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a residential condominium building at the Accolade Tower, 1250 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario. The subject building is a Group C, 34 storey condominium with a height that exceeds 84 m. The proposed building is of non-combustible construction and is equipped with a fire alarm and a standpipe system. A sprinkler system is also installed but only in required areas. The construction in dispute involves the design of the water supply piping between the City water main and the subject building. The Applicant is proposing to have two water supply lines connect to either side of a valve in the city water main. However, once connected to the city main, the two water supply lines will join into a single 200 mm diameter private fire service main, at or on the property line which will continue approximately 500 m to the building, where it will then supply water for both the sprinkler and the standpipe and hose systems. Therefore, the dispute before the Commission is whether the proposed design provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4). of the 1997 Ontario Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 3.2.9.7. Water Supply for 65 mm Hose Connections (4) If the building is 84 m (275 ft 7 in) or more high, measured between grade and the ceiling level of the top storey, the building shall be served by not less than two sources of water supply from a public water system. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the design of the water supply to the subject condominium development consists of the installation of a new 300 mm diameter valve and chamber onto the city s water main, having two 200 mm diameter water main connections installed on either side of the new valve. The two 200 mm supply lines leading into the site, also having been provided with valves, would then join into a single 200 mm diameter water main that would serve the subject building. The Agent stated that the Respondent is of the position on the matter is that the two water supply connections from the city s water main should continue from the public water source connection all the way to the subject building. The Agent stated that in his opinion, a careful reading of Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) of the Building Code, suggests that the Respondent s position is not founded. The Agent argued that the most important words in the Code requirement are, two sources from The Agent argued that Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) is referring to the sources of water supply from a public water system, and not the configuration of distribution piping which extends away from the source of water supply. Further, suggesting that the sources relates to the actual point of connection, and not to the piping extending to a building from such points of connection. The Agent maintained that the proposed configuration of the water supply piping where there are two pipes, one connected on either side of a valve in the city s water main, provides two sources of water supply from a public system, therefore complying with Sentence
-4-3.2.9.7.(4) of the Code. The Agent suggested that the intent of this provision of the Code is to limit the probability that the building will be without water when there is a need for firefighting. The proposed provision of a valve in the public water main between the two branches which feed the subject building provides a degree of back-up or safeguard of water supply in the event of interruption of water due to maintenance or other events affecting the city water main. The Agent maintained that if such a disruption should occur on one side of the valve, that valve can be shut off, and the valve in the 200 mm feed to the building may also be shut off, leaving the other side of the main available to supply water to the building. The Agent reported that due to the location of the site, the building faces only one street and therefore, can only connect to one city water main. The Agent also argued that if a second water supply pipe was required from the city s water main all the way to the building, due to the constraints of available space on the subject building site, it would have to be located adjacent to the first water main. As such, the construction of two water mains side-by-side would not be advisable, as a break in one water main could cause an adjacent water main to fail by washing out its foundation. The Agent pointed out that in most buildings the two sources of water supply required by the Code converge into one main at some point. The Agent maintained that the Code does not prescribe where the convergence of the water supply piping should occur beyond the connections to the public water supply, and therefore, it was his opinion that the proposed design of the water supply piping sufficiently complies with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) of the Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the subject building is a new 34 storey condominium tower that has no access from the north, south, or west side of the building to the city s water main; the building s only access is from the east side of the site, which services the area of construction. The Designate argued that since the building is greater than 84 m high, the Code requires the building to be served by two independent water sources. The Designate reported that the Applicant s proposal and drawings submitted to the municipality show only one water supply line leading to the building, and therefore do not comply with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) of the Code. The Designate reported the municipality s position is that the Code is explicit: two private water mains should extend from the city s water main all the way to the building wall. He stated that they do not believe that two private water mains leading from the public water supply, which then converge into one private water main approximately 200 m away from the building, provides the building with the two separate required sources of water supply prescribed by the Code. The Designate further stated that the municipality sought the opinion of the Building and Development Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the local Toronto Fire Services department on this matter, and that they were both of the same opinion that two separate sources of water supply from a public water system would need to lead all they way to the building, in order to comply with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) of the Code.
-5-5. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed design of water supply piping between the City s water main and a 34 storey, residential building, where two water supply lines would connect to either side of a valve in the city water main, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4). of the 1997 Ontario Building Code at the Accolade Tower located at 1250 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) Sentence 3.2.9.7.(4) of the 1997 Building Code requires that a building which is 84m or more high must be served by not less than two sources of water supply from a public water system. It is the Commission s opinion, that as the subject building is more than 84 m high, the building requires two separate water supply lines to the building. Therefore, the proposal to join two water supply lines leading to the building into a single 200 mm diameter water main before reaching the building, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code. ii) Appendix 3.2.5.7 of the 1997 Ontario Building Code states that an adequate water supply for fire fighting should be an immediately available and accessible water supply with sufficient volume and /or flow Therefore, it is the Commission s opinion that providing two sources of water supply to the building would limit the probability that the building would be without water during fire fighting, should one of the sources be disrupted or fail.
-6- Dated at Toronto this 18 th day in the month of April in the year 2008 for application number 2008-03. Tony Chow, Chair Marina Huissoon Susan Friedrich