Ruling No. 03-16-914 Application No. 2003-08 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 9.8.8.2.(4) and Article 9.8.8.5. 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 John Kuiack, Wasko Development, for the resolution of a dispute with Rocky Cerminara, Chief Building Official, City of London, to determine whether the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of 819.2 mm as measured vertically above the stair nosings and built in accordance with Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) complies with the intent of OBC Article 9.8.8.5. to reduce the likelihood of climbing, and whether the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at 698.5 mm above the stair nosings provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.5. of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE John Kuiack Wasko Development London, Ontario Rocky Cerminara Chief Building Official City of London Bryan Whitehead, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING May 1, 2003 DATE OF RULING May 1, 2003 APPEARANCES Carl Roes Roes Stair Co. Inc. Mt. Brydges, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Dave Howe (Via Teleconference) Manager of Inspections City of London Designate for the Respondent
-2- RULING 1. The Applicant John Kuiack, Wasko Development, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies with respect to the construction of a dwelling located at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a Group C single detached dwelling. The structure is two storeys in building height and approximately 472 m 2 in building area. The construction in dispute involves the guard serving the interior stairs. The as-installed guard consists of a wood top rail and wrought iron vertical members (hereafter pickets). The pickets have been designed into groups of three, with each group having a decorative cross member towards the upper portion of the guard system. A curved portion, which extends to the wood top rail, has been attached above each horizontal member; thereby, creating a semi-circular/crescent design. The horizontal members are not continuous and do not extend from one group of pickets to the next. Each picket also has a small decorative protrusion at its midpoint. The as-installed guard at dispute, when measured vertically from a line drawn through the outside edges of the stair nosings to the top of the handrail, extends to a height of 819.2 mm. The semicircular/crescent element, as described above, extends to a height of 698.5 mm when measured vertically from the tread of the stair. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of 819.2 mm as measured vertically above the stair nosings and built in accordance with Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) complies with the intent of OBC Article 9.8.8.5. to reduce the likelihood of climbing, and whether the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at 698.5 mm above the stair nosings provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.5. of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) of the OBC outlines the height requirements for guards serving stairs located within dwelling units. According to this provision, stairs within dwelling units and stairs serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than 800 mm (2 ft 7 in) measured vertically to the top of the guard from a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosings. Since the guard in dispute measures to a height of 819.2 mm, the as-installed guard has been built in accordance with Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) of the OBC. The Appendix to Article 9.8.8.2. (A-9.8.8.2.), while not an official part of the Code, offers a rationale as to the intent of this Code provision, because it explains how minimum height requirements have been established for guards. It states that guard heights are based on the waist heights of average persons; however, they are generally lower in dwelling units because the occupants become familiar with the potential hazards and, more so, because jostling under crowded conditions are less likely to arise in residential settings.
-3- Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) stipulates that required guards, which serve buildings of residential occupancy, must be designed in such a way so as not to facilitate climbing between 100 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface of the area the guard is protecting. This requirement provides for a non-climbable zone of 800 mm. The 800 mm protected region, beginning 100 mm above the walking surface, is intended to limit the likelihood that a picket, decorative element, or horizontal/near horizontal member, would produce a ladder effect, which could lead to a child climbing over the guard. In the disputed construction, both the handrail of the guard, and the semi-circular/crescent members, are located within non-climbable zone (at heights of 819.2 mm and 698.5 mm respectively). It should be noted that the issue of the 800 mm protective zone was addressed by a previous decision at the Building Code Commission (Ruling No. 02-40-895), which pertained to the same as-installed guard system in question here. In this previous decision, the Commission ruled that the 800 mm nonclimbable zone, in this particular instance, could be measured directly from the level of the walking surface to a total height of 800 mm. At dispute, therefore, in the case at hand is whether the handrail portion of the guard, located at 819.2 mm above the walking surface of the stair nosings as permitted by Sentence 9.8.8.4.(4) of the OBC, complies with Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) requiring guard design to prevent climbing, even though the total guard height is considerably less than 900 mm. In other word, can a handrail as part of a guard serving a stair be located within the non-climbable zone stipulated in Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) and still meet the intent of that provision? Also at dispute is whether the semi-circular/crescent element may facilitate climbing when considering Article 9.8.8.5. and its zone of non-climbability. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Sentence 9.8.8.2. Height of Guards (4) Guards for stairs within dwelling units and stairs serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than 800 mm (2 ft 7 in) measured vertically above a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosings, and not less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above landings. (See Appendix A) Article 9.8.8.5. Design to Prevent Climbing (1) Guards required by Article 9.8.8.1. and serving buildings of residential occupancy shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 100 mm (4 in) and 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard will facilitate climbing. (See Appendix A) 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by submitting that there seems to be a contradiction between Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) and Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) of the Code. He argued that Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) requires that the height of a guard measures no less than 800 mm when measuring vertically from above a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosing; whereas, Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) stipulates that a guard must be designed in such a way so as not to facilitate climbing between 100 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface of the area the guard is protecting. The Agent argued that when considering these two Sentences in conjunction, it appears that Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) requires a guard to be designed
-4- to a height of 800 mm, while Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) requires a non-climbable zone that extends to a height of 900 mm, which is 100 mm above the height of the guard required by Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4). The Agent stated that, in this opinion, these two provisions of the Code are clearly at odds with one another. The Agent continued by asking the Commission whether they would consider the notion of a sliding non-climbable zone downwards to the stair nosing, which would maintain the integrity of the 800 mm non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4). In this case, the Agent argued that the nonclimbable zone should be measured from the imaginary line that runs through the stair nosings to a height of 800 mm, instead of being measured from 100 mm above the tread of the stair to a height of 900 mm. The Agent continued by stating that the integrity of the 800 mm non-climbable zone would still be maintained; however, it would be shifted slightly downwards. If measured in this manner, the handrail of the guard in dispute, which is 819.2 mm in height when measuring vertically above a line drawn through the outside edges of the stair nosing, would be located 19.2 mm above the non-climbable zone and therefore, would be considered in compliance. Shifting the non-climbable zone in this manner, however, would not address the semi-circular/crescent elements, as these are located 673.1 mm above the walking surface of the tread and therefore situated in the zone of non-climbability. In order to address this issue, the Agent advised the Commission to consider the overall climbability of the guard at dispute. As per the Agent s opinion, the guard does not pose a ladder effect and, therefore, is not very tempting for a child to climb over. In summary, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that clearly the Code poses a contradiction with respect to the provisions outlined for residential guard design. As a result, he argued that the Commission should consider concessions with respect to the determination of the non-climbable zone. Finally, the Agent advised that it is both his opinion, and the opinion of the Applicant, that the guard in dispute does not provide a hazard with respect to child climbing. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that he had two questions that he wanted the Commission to consider. The first of which was whether the semi-circular/crescent element of the guard in dispute poses a hazard with respect to child climbing. The second question, which was intended for the purposes of clarity, pertained to the Commission s opinion with respect to the 800 mm non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) of the Code and whether it can shifted up or down. The Designate continued by stating that it is the position of the City of London s Building Division that the interior guard in dispute does not comply with Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) - Design to Prevent Climbing. In his opinion, the semi-circular/crescent element, which is located 698.5 mm above the tread of the stair, could facilitate climbing, because it is located within the non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) of the OBC. Furthermore, the Designate added that Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) permits a guard on a stair to be no more than 800 mm in height. When considering Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1), which stipulates that a guard shall be designed so that no member, attachment, or opening, be located between 100 mm and 900 mm above the walking surface the top of the handrail for the guard in dispute is clearly within the non-climbable zone at a height of 819.2 mm. As per the Designate, this again presents a climbable element; thereby, increasing the probability of hazards resulting from the as-installed guard. In summary, the Designate stated that his position is clear. He maintained that it is the opinion of the City of London s Building Division that the both the semi-circular element and the handrail of the guard
-5- in dispute could facilitate child climbing, as both are located within the non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence 9.8.8.5.(1) of the Code. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of 819.2 mm, as measured vertically above the stair nosings, and built in accordance with OBC Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) complies with the intent of Article 9.8.8.5. to reduce the likelihood of climbing at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario. It is also the decision of the Building Code Commission that the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at 698.5 mm above the stair nosings does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.5. of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) In the BCC s view, the zone of non-climbability between 100 and 900 mm above the walking surface as set out in Article 9.8.8.5. does not need to be fixed at this height and may be moved slightly upwards or downwards as long as the intent of the provision is maintained, i.e., the integrity of the 800 mm zone of non-climbability is not compromised. In the present instance, the Commission holds that the climbable zone can be shifted down to the imaginary line that runs through the stair nosings and therefore the handrail, constructed as part of the subject OBC 9.8.8.2.(4) compliant guard, and measured at 819.2 mm above the stair nosings is considered to comply with the intent of Article 9.8.8.5. ii) iii) iv) The guard serving a stair, constructed to a height of 819.2 mm, meets and surpasses the prescriptive requirements of OBC Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4), which mandates a minimum height of 800 mm for such guards. Notwithstanding the above, the subject guard does however contain certain semi-circular elements, the bottom of which are measured at 698.5 mm above the stair nosing. In the BCC s view, these elements represent a possible climbing hazard and are located almost wholly within the 800 mm zone of non-climbability. No compensatory measures were offered to mitigate the potential climbing hazard presented by the semi-circular elements.
-6- Dated at Toronto this 1st day in the month of May in the year 2003 for application number 2003-08. Bryan Whitehead, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt