Ruling No.: 20-03-1554
Application No.: B-2019-37
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 Article 9.10.3.1., Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2), Article 11.5.1.1. and Table 11.5.1.1.C of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Jeff Hand, for the resolution of a dispute with Michael Janotta, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the existing floor and wall assemblies of the proposed two-unit dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.3.1., Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2), Article 11.5.1.1. and Table 11.5.1.1.C. of Division B of the Building Code, when considering compliance alternative C152 and C153 and Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A of the Building Code at 33 Violet St., Barrie, Ontario.
APPLICANT Jeff Hand Homeowner Barrie, Ontario
RESPONDENT Michael Janotta Chief Building Official City of Barrie Barrie, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Rick Mori Andrew Steen
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING February 12, 2020
DATE OF RULING February 12, 2020
APPEARANCES Jeff Hand Homeowner Barrie, Ontario The Applicant
Naythan Nunes Designer Barrie, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Michael Janotta Chief Building Official City of Barrie Barrie, Ontario The Respondent
Christopher Grexton Deputy Chief Building Official City of Barrie Barrie, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, for a secondary suite, at 33 Violet Street, Barrie, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing 1 storey, Group C residential building with a building area of 167.28 m2. The building is more than 5 years old and contains a pre-existing dwelling unit in the basement which was constructed without a building permit.
The construction in dispute involves whether the existing ½ inch gypsum board applied to both the floor and wall assemblies of the proposed two-unit dwelling, achieves a 15-minute fire-resistance rating and further, whether sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.3.1., Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2), Article 11.5.1.1. and Table 11.5.1.1.C have been achieved.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.10.3.1. Fire-Resistance and Fire-Protection Ratings
(1) Where a fire-resistance rating or a fire-protection rating is required in this Section for an element of a building, such rating shall be determined in conformance with the test methods described in Part 3, or in accordance with MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, “Fire Performance Ratings”, or MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-3, “Fire and Sound Resistance of Building Assemblies”. (See Appendix A.)
Appendix A-9.10.3.1.(1) Fire and Sound Resistance of Building Assemblies.
The Tables found in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-3 may be used to select building assemblies for compliance with Article 9.10.3.1. and Subsection 9.11.2. Assembles not listed in those Tables are equally acceptable provided their fire and sound resistance can be demonstrated to meet the above-noted requirements on the basis of tests referred to in 9.10.3.1. and 9.11.1. or by using the data in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2.
10.4.1.1. Substitution
(2) Except as provided in Sentence (3), a compliance alternative to a requirement contained in Part 9 or 12 shown in Tables 11.5.1.1.C., 11.5.1.1.D/E. or 11.5.1.1.F. may be substituted for the requirement without satisfying the chief building official that the requirement is impracticable.
11.5.1.1. Compliance Alternatives
(1) A compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.A., 11.5.1.1.B., 11.5.1.1.C., 11.5.1.1.D/E. or 11.5.1.1.F. may be substituted for a requirement contained in Part 3, 4, 6 or 8 where the chief building official is satisfied that compliance with the requirement is impracticable because,
(a) of structural or construction difficulties, or
(b) it is detrimental to the preservation of a heritage building.
(2) A compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.A., 11.5.1.1.B., 11.5.1.1.C., 11.5.1.1.D/E. or 11.5.1.1.F. may be substituted for a requirement contained in Part 9 or 12 without satisfying the chief building official that compliance with the requirement is impracticable.
Table 11.5.1.1.C. (Cont'd) Compliance Alternatives for Residential Occupancies Forming Part of Article 11.5.1.1.
C152
9.10.9.14.(1) and (3); 9.10.9.15.(1)
(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c), 30 min fire separation is acceptable.
(b) In a house, 15 min horizontal fire separation is acceptable where,
(i) smoke alarms are installed in every dwelling unit and in common areas in conformance with Subsection 9.10.19., and
(ii) smoke alarms are interconnected.
(c) In a house, the fire-resistance rating of the fire separation is waived where the building is sprinklered.
C153
9.10.10.3.
(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) and in Articles 9.10.10.5. and 9.10.10.6., 30 min fire separation is acceptable.
(b) In a house, the fire-resistance rating of the vertical fire separation is waived where,
(i) smoke alarms are installed in every dwelling unit and in common areas in conformance with Subsection 9.10.19., and
(ii) smoke alarms are interconnected.
(c) In a house, the fire-resistance rating of the vertical fire separation is waived where service rooms are sprinklered.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant advised that he purchased the home in November 2004, which contained an existing basement apartment. The Applicant informed the Commission that he is willing to comply with the applicable building code requirements to legalize the basement dwelling unit.
The Agent for the Applicant (“Agent”) explained that the dispute is whether the existing single layer of ½ inch gypsum boards applied to the floor and wall assemblies of the building meet the required fire-resistance rating required by the Building Code. The Agent stated that he believes his proposed design meets the requirements of the Code. The Agent stated it was his opinion that since the existing building requires a permit under section 10 of the Building Code Act, Part 10 of Division B of the Building Code is applicable. Further, since the building is more than 5 years old, as per Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A, he advised that Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code is also applicable to this building.
The Agent advised that Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2) leads a code user to Section 11.5 of the Building Code, which permits compliance alternatives to be used to achieve compliance with specific prescriptive requirements of the Code.
The Agent stated that compliance alternatives C152 and C153 of Table 11.5.1.1.C. can be used in the design to comply with specific Part 9 requirements of the Code as the conditions in the Table have been met.
In this case, the Agent advised that the subject secondary suite will have: 3 means of egress, a smoke detector installed in the heating duct system where it will shut off the fuel supply and power to the furnace upon detection of smoke, and further, the building will be equipped with interconnected smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors.
The Agent explained that as per compliance alternative C152, a horizontal fire separation of 15 min is acceptable where, smoke alarms are installed in every dwelling unit and in common areas in conformance with Subsection 9.10.19. and smoke alarms are interconnected. The Agent submitted that the existing ½ inch gypsum board applied to both the floor and wall assemblies achieves a 15 min fire-resistance rating as permitted in compliance alternative C152.
The Agent submitted that past performance and tests prove that ½ inch gypsum board is acceptable for use in fire rated assemblies, as shown in 15 min fire rated assemblies listed in UL (Underwriters Laboratories - USA), ULC (Underwriters Laboratories Canada), and CCMC (Canadian Construction Materials Centre) reports, as well as the HUD Guideline on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies, listed in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2 of the Building Code (commonly referred to as the HUD guideline). The Agent argued that as per Section 6.4 of MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2 of the Building Code, the component additive method could be used to determine the fire-resistance rating of the floor and supporting wall assemblies. The Agent submitted that when applied to the floor assembly above the basement dwelling unit, the component additive method easily demonstrates that a 15 minute fire-resistance rating can be achieved. The Agent advised that using this method, a 5 minute fire-resistance rating could be applied to the plywood, 8-10 minute to the floor joists, and 15 minutes for the ½ inch gypsum board, which when combined would exceed the 15 minute fire-resistance rating permitted by compliance alternative C152. The Agent submitted that there were other areas of the Building Code which provide examples where the addition of ½ inch gypsum board is considered to add 15 minutes to the fire-resistance rating of an assembly.
The Agent submitted that applying a 15 minute fire-resistance rating to ½ inch gypsum board is standard practice in the industry and is commonly accepted by various municipalities. The Agent argued that considering the additive method described, in conjunction with the installation of in-duct smoke detectors and interconnected smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors between the two units, the requirements of compliance alternatives C152 and C153 have been more than adequately satisfied. Further, the Agent maintained that the submitted design meets the intent of the Code as it provides life safety measures and early warning for all occupants of the building.
The Agent argued that the compliance path for the design for this building does not lead to Article 9.10.3.1. as has been suggested by the Respondent.
In summary, the Agent concluded that the proposal to use the existing ½ inch gypsum board applied to both the floor and wall assemblies for the two-unit dwelling, achieves a 15 minute fire-resistance rating and further, when considering the proposal to install interconnected smoke alarms, complies with the requirements of compliance alternatives C152 and C153.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent advised that the existing basement apartment located at the subject building was built without a permit and that the City of Barrie has received multiple complaints over the years about the building.
The Respondent submitted that the City of Barrie was not disputing the application of Part 11 as specified in Sentence 1.1.2.6.(1) of Division A of the Building Code or the need to satisfy the Chief Building Official to use compliance alternatives as specified in 11.5.1.1.(2). The Respondent also clarified that the City of Barrie was not disputing Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2) of the Code. However, he advised that the permit application was being reviewed by the building department under Part 11 of the Building Code. The Respondent added that the application of compliance alternatives C152 and C153 was also not in dispute.
The Respondent submitted that the issue at dispute is that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the existing floor and wall assemblies of the subject building provide a 15 minute fire separation, which is permitted by compliance alternatives C152.
In response to questions, the Respondent clarified that in absence of being able to demonstrate that the existing ½ inch gypsum board provides the required 15 minute fire-resistance rating for the fire separation, a code user would need to use Part 9, Article 9.10.3.1. Fire-Resistance and Fire-Protection Ratings, of Division B of the Building Code to assist in determining if a 15 minute fire-resistance rating is achieved.
In reference to the Agent’s argument that the fire-resistance ratings of the floor and wall assemblies could be determined by using the HUD document referred to in MMHA Supplementary Standard SB-2, Section 6.2., the Respondent submitted that Section 6.2. references “Obsolete Materials and Assemblies” which applies to building materials, components and structural members and assemblies in buildings constructed prior to 1995. The Respondent submitted that the building in question was constructed in 2002 as a single-family dwelling and therefore, the application of the referenced HUD guideline to this building, is not applicable.
The Respondent submitted that there is no standard testing procedure or testing data which assigns a rating to ½ inch unrated gypsum board and therefore, there is no correlation between products from different manufactures. As a result, the Respondent submitted that the City of Barrie is unable to assign a rating to the unspecified gypsum product used in the existing wall and floor assemblies of this building.
In response to the Agent’s submission that by using the component additive method outlined in MMHA Supplementary Standard SB-2, ½ inch gypsum board can be determined to have a fire resistance rating of 15 minute, the Respondent submitted that the component additive method in SB-2 pertains to Type X rated gypsum board and not unrated gypsum board, as is the case in this building.
In response to questions, the Respondent submitted that the Building Code requires that if a fire separation is required for the floor assembly, then the loadbearing wall assemblies supporting the floor would also need to have the same fire-resistance rating as the floor.
The Respondent submitted that he agrees with the Applicant that Part 11 of the Building Code permits a reduction in the fire resistance rating from 45 minutes, as required by Part 9 of the Code for new construction, to 15 minutes. However, since Part 11 does not specify how the fire-resistance rating is achieved, a code user would rely on MMHA Supplementary Standards SB-2, SB-3, ULC listed assemblies, testing reports or Archaic Material Manuals. The Respondent submitted that he has not received any evidence or supporting information from the Applicant to confirm that ½ inch unrated gypsum board can provide a 15 minute fire-resistance rating and therefore, it is his position that the Applicant’s proposal does not achieve compliance with the Building Code.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the existing floor and wall assemblies of the proposed two-unit dwelling, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 11.5.1.1. and Table 11.5.1.1.C. of Division B of the Building Code, when considering compliance alternatives C152 of the Building Code at 33 Violet St., Barrie, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission heard the Respondent state that Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A of the Building Code and Sentence 10.4.1.1.(2) of Division B of the Building Code were not in dispute. The Commission also heard the Respondent clarify that compliance alternative C153, which refers to vertical fire separations was not in dispute, but rather that the 15 minute fire-resistance rating for the required horizontal fire separation referenced in C152 was the issue. Therefore, the Commission removed these references from the above ruling.
ii) The Commission heard both parties make submissions using MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2 as referenced in Article 9.10.3.1. to determine the fire-resistance ratings of the floor and wall assemblies and the use of this standard was not in dispute. Therefore, the Commission also removed this Article from the above ruling.
iii) The Commission heard that Article 11.5.1.1. permits a compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.C. to be substituted for a requirement contained in Part 9. As per compliance alternative C152, a 15 min horizontal fire separation is acceptable in a house where, smoke alarms are installed in every dwelling unit and in common areas in conformance with Subsection 9.10.19., and smoke alarms are interconnected.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the building in question would be equipped with in-duct smoke detectors, and interconnected smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors meeting the requirements of compliance alternate C152. As a result, a 15 minute horizontal fire separation between the two dwelling units would be acceptable.
iv) The Commission heard submission from the Agent that the component additive method, as set out in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, as referenced in Article 9.10.3.1. of the Building Code, could be used to determine that a 15 minute fire-resistance rating for the fire separation can be achieved with the existing unrated gypsum board as applied to the floor and the supporting wall assemblies. However, the Commission also heard testimony that the component additive method outlined in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, can be applied when Type X gypsum board is used but does not reference unrated gypsum board. Therefore, this method is not applicable because unrated gypsum board was used.
v) The Commission also heard submission from the Agent that the HUD Guideline on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies, which is referenced in Section 6.2. Obsolete Materials and Assemblies of MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, could be used to allocate 15 minute fire-resistance rating to both the floor and supporting wall assemblies.
The Commission also heard evidence and testimony that Section 6.2. Obsolete Materials and Assemblies of MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2 only applies to buildings constructed prior to 1995. The Commission heard that the subject building was constructed in 2002 and, therefore, is of the opinion that the referenced HUD Guideline is not applicable to this building.
Based on the evidence and testimony provided by the parties, it was not demonstrated that the existing ½ inch unrated gypsum board applied to the floor and supporting wall assemblies of the proposed two-unit dwelling provides a 15 minute fire-resistance rating to the required fire separation and, therefore, it does not provide sufficiency of compliance with compliance alterative C152 of Table 11.5.1.1.C contained in Article 11.5.1.1. of Division B of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 12th day in the month of February in the year 2020 for application number B-2019-37.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Rick Mori
Andrew Steen