OBCC 2020

The applicant appealed a condition of a building permit requiring the installation of a universal washroom in each unit of a renovated two-unit industrial storage building.

The applicant argued that the building would only be used for storage, would not be open to the public, and would not be occupied on a daily or full-time basis.

The Building Code Commission agreed, finding that under Clause 3.8.1.1.(1)(c) of the Building Code, buildings not intended to be occupied on a daily or full-time basis are exempt from barrier-free design provisions.

The Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide universal washrooms provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the installation of a sewage pump chamber.

The issue was whether the horizontal setback distances for treatment units under Part 8 of the Building Code applied to the pump chamber, which was located within 15 metres of a neighbouring well.

The Commission ruled that a pump chamber is not a 'treatment unit' as defined in the Building Code, and therefore the clearance distances in Part 8 do not apply.

The proposed pump chamber was found to provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the location of a fire department connection for a new automatic sprinkler system in an existing 11-storey residential building.

The applicant proposed relocating the connection to a point 47 metres from the nearest fire hydrant, which exceeded the 45-metre maximum required by Sentence 3.2.5.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance, noting that the relocation was voluntary, site restrictions prevented meeting the 45-metre requirement, and moving the connection from its existing 67-metre distance to 47 metres significantly improved the building's level of fire protection.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply concerning free-standing glass guards installed without a top rail in a new four-storey building.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution using laminated glass with a stiff interlayer, arguing it met the performance level required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the structural and load requirements of the Building Code, noting that the calculations used reduced loading for a 'rare event' and failed to address specified vertical loads.

The Commission concluded that the required top rail provides a margin of safety for catastrophic failure that was not equivalently demonstrated by the alternative solution.

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.

The applicant sought a building permit for a new sewage treatment system to service a proposed automotive development, including a dealership and car wash.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the methodology for calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flow.

The applicant argued that the proposed occupancies were not listed in the Building Code and relied on metered data from similar establishments.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the applicant's calculation methods did not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.3 of the Building Code, as calculations could be established using multiple listed occupancies and the provided metered data was insufficient and lacked appropriate peaking factors.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for a two-storey rear addition to an existing residential building.

The applicant proposed to relocate existing windows to the new extended wall face, arguing this complied with the compliance alternatives in Part 11 of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission held that while Part 11 permits relocating existing windows on the existing wall, it does not permit relocating them to a new wall that is part of an addition, especially where the limiting distance is less than 1.2 metres.

The proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct a self-service storage facility on the first storey of an existing 31-storey mixed-use building containing residential suites.

The Chief Building Official denied the alternative solution proposal.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's prohibition on occupancy combinations, as the proposed compensating measures were insufficient to offset the fire and life safety risks to the residential occupants.

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a secondary suite.

The issue was whether the existing 1/2 inch unrated gypsum board on the floor and wall assemblies achieved a 15-minute fire-resistance rating under compliance alternative C152 of the Building Code.

The Commission found that the component additive method and the HUD Guideline on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies did not apply to unrated gypsum board or to a building constructed in 2002.

The Commission ruled that the assemblies did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's denial of a building permit to install a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) on a vacant lot for a proposed new cottage.

The applicant argued that a Class 4 system could not be installed due to setback requirements from neighbouring dug wells.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not comply with Article 8.8.1.1 of Division B of the Building Code, as none of the acceptable circumstances for a Class 5 system under Article 8.8.1.2 were met.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to construct an addition to an existing cottage and add plumbing fixtures, which would increase the finished floor area by more than 15%.

The Chief Building Official denied the building permit on the basis that the existing Class 5 sewage system (holding tanks) could not accommodate the expansion under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed construction did not increase the total daily design sewage flow beyond the capacity of the existing holding tanks.

The Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.