David Annable

The applicant constructed a six-storey residential building with a sloped floor in the entrance lobby vestibule, contrary to the original approved plans.

The Chief Building Official issued an Order to Comply, arguing the sloped floor lacked the required level area on each side of the vestibule doors.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-constructed lobby does not comply with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of the Building Code, as the floor surface on each side of the door in a barrier-free path of travel must be level.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether 10 residential units on the second floor of a proposed mixed-use building required barrier-free accessibility.

The applicant argued the units were stacked townhouses falling under the Building Code's definition of 'house', thus exempting them.

The respondent contended the exemption did not apply because the ground floor contained commercial units.

The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the residential units were characteristically similar to a 'house' as they were private, independent from the commercial space, and had individual garages and exterior access.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute regarding the installation of three glazed openings on the west wall of a recreational accessory building.

The building department had refused to accept the as-installed windows because they exceeded the maximum allowable area of unprotected openings given the limiting distance to the property line.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-installed area of glazed openings substantially exceeded the allowable area under the Building Code and that no compensating measures were provided.

The Commission ruled that the construction did not achieve sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the construction of a flour mill.

The issue was whether protecting floor penetrations for process piping with additional sprinklers, rather than conventional fire stopping, complied with the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that providing a firestop around the sifter boxes would disrupt the manufacturing process, engaging the exception in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3).

The Commission ruled that the applicant's proposal to provide additional sprinklers around the sifter box piping, and to fire stop all other process piping openings with concrete and steel plates, provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.