Dave Annable

The applicant sought a building permit for a detached laneway house.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed fire department access complied with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution involving an automatic sprinkler system and exterior strobe light to compensate for an extended fire access route.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed access did not provide sufficiency of compliance, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the performance of the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the Building Code or that water pressure could be maintained over the extended distances.

The applicant sought to install a new Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) containing combustible components on an existing seven-storey, unsprinklered residential building.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the Building Code limits such systems to noncombustible buildings that are sprinklered and do not exceed six storeys.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the Chief Building Official, finding that the proposed EIFS does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code because the building is unsprinklered and exceeds three storeys in height.