Wasyk v. Bird, 2019 ONBCC 11
Ruling No.: 19-11-1531
Application No.: B-2019-09
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 Sentences 3.2.8.2.(5) and 3.2.8.2.(6), and 3.2.5.13.(1) of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Sonja Wasyk, for the resolution of a dispute with Chris Bird, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the existing sprinkler protection provided for the interconnected floor space of the 2 storey building, Group D and Group F, Division 2 occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.8.2.(5) and 3.2.8.2.(6), and 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, at Enercare Inc., 7400 Birchmount Road, Markham, Ontario.
APPLICANT Sonja Wasyk Enercare Inc., Markham, Ontario
RESPONDENT Chris Bird Chief Building Official City of Markham, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Alexandra Chow Michael Egberts
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING July 4, 2019
DATE OF RULING July 4, 2019
APPEARANCES Sonja Wasyk Facilities Senior Manager Enercare Inc., Markham, Ontario The Applicant
Gary MacDonald George Popper Architect Inc. Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Larry Keeping Senior Technical Specialist PLC Fire Safety Solutions Agent for the Applicant
Tony Boyko Manager, Building Code Inspections Building Standards Department City of Markham, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to renovate an existing building at Enercare Inc., 7400 Birchmount Road, Markham, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing 2-storey building with a Group D major occupancy on the ground and second floors and a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy on a portion of the ground floor. The building is approximately 4,994 m² in building area, is of non-combustible construction and is equipped with a sprinkler system and fire alarm system.
The construction in dispute relates to the renovation in the north main entrance of the building, which contains two adjacent floor openings (interconnected floor space), where one of the floor openings contains a curved convenience stair.
The dispute before the Commission to determine is whether the existing sprinkler protection provided for the interconnected floor space of the 2 storey building, Group D and Group F, Division 2 occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.8.2.(5) and 3.2.8.2.(6), and 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 3.2.5.13. Automatic Sprinkler Systems
(1) Except as provided by Sentences (2) to (4), an automatic sprinkler system shall be designed, constructed, installed and tested in conformance with NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems”.
Article 3.2.8.2. Exceptions to Special Protection
(5) Except as permitted by Sentence (6), openings for stairways, escalators and inclined moving walks need not conform to the requirements in Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. provided,
(a) the opening for each stairway, escalator or walk does not exceed 10 m²,
(b) the building is sprinklered throughout, and
(c) the interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D or Group E occupancies.
(6) An interconnected floor space need not conform to the requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. provided,
(a) the interconnected floor space consists of the first storey and the storey next above or below it, but not both,
(b) the interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and
(c) the interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D, Group E, or Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancies.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the subject building is an existing building undergoing a renovation. In response to questions, the Applicant submitted that the scope of the construction included renovating the office areas, removal of some partition walls, asbestos remediation, and sprinkler remediation.
The Applicant explained that the building is equipped with an existing sprinkler system, which does not have closely spaced sprinkler heads located at the opening of the interconnected floor space. The Applicant advised that the interconnected floor stair is not part of an exit, but rather a convenience stair and further, the ground floor has many exits that lead to the outside of the building.
The Applicant submitted that Subsection 3.2.8. of the Building Code describes the parameters and requirements for determining if openings in floor assemblies need protection and the extent of the protection. She advised that Article 3.2.8.2. of the Building Code describes the exceptions to special protection and Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) states that an interconnected floor space need not comply with Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11 if the following are met:
a) The interconnected floor space consists of the first storey and the storey next above or below it, but not both,
b) The interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and
c) The interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Group D, Group E or Group F, Division 2 or 3 Occupancies.
In this case, the Applicant argued that the subject interconnected floor space complies with all the above conditions set out in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) and therefore, the interconnected floor space does not require any special protection.
The Applicant submitted NFPA 13 specifies in Section 8.15.4.1. that, “…where moving stairways, staircases, or similar floor openings are unenclosed and where sprinkler protection is serving as the alternative to enclosure of the vertical opening, the floor openings involved shall be protected by closely spaced sprinklers in combination with draft stops …”.
The Applicant argued that since the Building Code does not require special protection of the interconnected floor space, the requirement in NFPA 13 for closely spaced sprinklers in combination with draft stops is not applicable because the sprinkler system is not serving as an alternative to enclosure of the vertical opening in this case.
Further, the Applicant submitted that NFPA 101 describes the parameter and requirements for protecting openings in floor assemblies. The Applicant stated that Section 8.6.9.1. of this standard describes the exceptions to special protection for convenience openings and further that unenclosed vertical openings are permitted as follows:
Such openings shall connect not more than two adjacent storeys
Such openings shall be separated from openings serving other floors by a barrier complying with 8.6.5.
Such openings shall be separated from corridors.
In other than approved, existing convenience openings shall be separated from other fire or smoke compartments on the same floor.
In new construction, the vertical opening is to be separated by a smoke separation if there is a corridor on the other side.
Openings shall not serve as a required means of egress.
The Applicant advised that all the above requirements are satisfied since the building: is not more than two storeys, does not contain any corridors at the interconnected floor space, is separated from other fire compartments on the same floor, is an existing construction, and further, the stair in the interconnected floor space is not a required means of egress.
The Applicant explained that the building’s two required exit stairs are located at the north and south end of the second floor and are within a 45 m travel distance from all points on the floor. She maintained that although the occupants are free to use the curved convenience stair to leave the building, it is not a required exit or means of egress.
In summary the Applicant maintained that the existing sprinkler system meets the exception set out in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of the Building Code and therefore, no additional protection is required based on a review of Subsection 3.2.8. of the Code and NFPA 101 Section 8.6.9.1.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent submitted that a building permit was issued for a renovation of the subject building, which included the relocation, removal and replacement of some sprinkler piping and sprinkler heads.
The Designate advised that the municipality had reviewed the requirements of Part 11 of the Building Code to determine if there were certain relaxations or compliance alternatives that would apply to the proposed renovation. However, he stated, it was determined that compliance alternatives with respect to the remediated sprinkler system were not applicable and that the requirements of Subsection 3.2.8. of Division B of the Building Code regarding protection for mezzanines and floor openings applied.
The Designate explained that the dispute before the Commission centers on whether the remediated sprinkler system complies with Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, which requires that an automatic sprinkler system be designed, constructed, installed and tested in conformance with NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems”.
The Designate submitted that Sentences 3.2.8.2.(5) and (6) of Division B of the Building Code require that this building be sprinklered throughout. The Designate submitted that where a building is required to have an automatic sprinkler system installed, it must be in compliance with Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1). Therefore, the Designate argued that a sprinklered building must conform to Sections 8.15.4.1., 8.15.4.2. and 8.15.4.3. of NFPA 13. As a result, the Designate maintained that the floor opening for the stairs and the other adjacent opening in the North main entrance areas of the subject building are required to be protected by closely spaced sprinklers in combination with draft stops.
In summary, the Designate submitted that the Applicant’s proposal to protect the interconnected floor space using the existing remediated sprinkler system, which does not include closely spaced sprinkler heads in combination with draft stops, does not comply with Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of the Division B of the Building Code because the building is not sprinklered with an automatic sprinkler system that is in conformance with NFPA 13.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the existing sprinkler protection provided for the interconnected floor space of the 2-storey building, Group D and Group F, Division 2 occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.8.2.(5) and 3.2.8.2.(6), and 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, at Enercare Inc., 7400 Birchmount Road, Markham, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) Article 3.2.5.13. of Division B of the Building Code requires that automatic sprinkler systems be designed, constructed, installed and tested in conformance with NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems”.
Section 8.15.4.1. of NFPA 13 requires that where moving stairways, staircases, or similar floor openings are unenclosed and where sprinkler protection is serving as the alternative to enclosure of the vertical opening, the floor openings involved shall be protected by closely spaced sprinklers in combination with draft stops.
The Commission received evidence that in this case the sprinkler protection is not serving as an alternative to enclosure of the vertical opening. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops are not required.
ii) Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6), which sets out the exceptions for special protection for an interconnected floor space states:
An interconnected floor space need not conform to the requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. provided,
(a) the interconnected floor space consists of the first storey and the storey next above or below it, but not both,
(b) the interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and
(c) the interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D, Group E, or Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancies.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the interconnected floor space in question consists of the first storey and the next above it, that the interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and further that the interconnected floor space contains only Group D and Group F, Division 2 occupancies. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that having met the conditions set out in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6), special protection such as closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops, is not required for the subject interconnected floor space.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 4th day in the month of July in the year 2019 for application number B-2019-09.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Egberts