Ruling No.: 21-01-1175
Application No.: B-2020-22
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 3.4.1.4., Clauses 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) and 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Juan Yanez, Bond Securcom Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Will Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to install electromagnetic locks on two sets of exit doors that form part of the exit lobby, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.4.1.4. and Clauses 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) and 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) of Division B of the Building Code at 155 Yorkville Ave, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT Juan Yanez
Bond Securcom Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT Will Johnston
Chef Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Alison Orr
Carolyn Bilson
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING January 20, 2021
DATE OF RULING January 20, 2021
APPEARANCES Brian Doswell
Phoenix Security Services
Pefferlaw, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Selva Panchanatham
Manager, Plan Review
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Frank Simo
Zoning Building Code Examiner
City of Toronto, 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 install electromagnetic locks at the ground floor of 155 Yorkville Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing 23 storeys high non-combustible building that was constructed many years ago as a hotel. The building is being renovated under separate building permits and will be occupied by a mix of residential and commercial suites of Group C and E occupancies. The building is sprinklered, and there is a standpipe and hose system, and fire alarm system.
The construction in dispute involves the installation of electromagnetic locks at two sets of exterior exit doors, at the main floor level. The exit doors lead from an exit lobby for Stair A, which discharges at the ground floor level. The dispute before the Commission centers on whether the installation of the electromagnetic locks at the two sets of exterior doors, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.4.1.4. and Clauses 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) and 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) of Division B of the Building Code.
The Applicant believes the electromagnetic locks are permitted in the proposed locations, and the Respondent believes they are not permitted.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 3.4.1.4. Types of Exit
(1) Subject to the requirements of this Section, an exit from any floor area shall be one of the following, used singly or in combination:
(a) an exterior doorway,
(b) an exterior passageway,
(c) an exterior ramp,
(d) an exterior stairway,
(e) a fire escape (conforming to Subsection 3.4.7.),
(f) a horizontal exit,
(g) an interior passageway,
(h) an interior ramp, or
(i) an interior stairway.
Division B, Article 3.4.6.16. Door Release Hardware
(2) If a door is equipped with a latching mechanism, a device that will release the latch and allow the door to swing wide open when a force of not more than 90 N is applied to the device in the direction of travel to the exit shall be installed on,
(a) every exit door from a floor area containing an assembly occupancy having an occupant load more than 100,
(b) every door leading to an exit lobby from an exit stair shaft, and every exterior door leading from an exit stair shaft in a building having an occupant load more than 100, and
(c) every exit door from a floor area containing a high hazard industrial occupancy.
(5) Except as permitted by Sentences (6) and (7), electromagnetic locks are not permitted to be installed on exit doors,
(a) described in Clause (2)(a), (b) or (c),
(b) serving an elementary or secondary school, or
(c) leading directly from a high hazard industrial occupancy.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the proposed construction involves the installation of electromagnetic locks on two separate sets of exterior exit doors, leading from an exit lobby that contains an exit stair.
The Agent understood that the City required the vestibule door and exterior doors to have a latching mechanism with panic hardware, according to Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b), and that the doors could then not be permitted to have electromagnetic locks under Clause 3.4.6.16.(5)(a).
The Agent clarified that the door leading from Stair A was equipped with panic hardware, so the doors could be unlatched by a push bar operated in the direction of travel. The Agent understood that the door leading from Stair A was not permitted to be equipped with electromagnetic locks, and electromagnetic locks were not proposed for that location. The electromagnetic locks were to be installed on the exterior double doors on the north side of the building, and a single exterior door on the east side of the building.
The single exterior door on the east side of the building did not have a latching mechanism. It was suggested by the Designate for the Respondent that the double exterior doors on the north side of the building did have a latching mechanism, which was unlatched by pushing on the horizontal portion of the door hardware, in the direction of travel.
The Agent explained that the electromagnetic locks hold with 3,000 lb of force, with no latch or pin. To enter the building, a card reader is swiped, and the door unlocks for 5 seconds. To exit the building, a push button is used to unlock the doors. The fire alarm system is connected to the electromagnetic lock, and if the fire alarm is activated in the building, all locks will release. Also, there is a pull station adjacent to the door, and if the pull station is used to activate the fire alarm system, the locks will be released. If there is a power failure, the locks will also be released. If the fire alarm is cleared, the electromagnetic locks will not re-lock automatically, they have to be manually reset.
The Agent disagreed with the City’s position that the two sets of exterior doors, and the interior vestibule door, could not be equipped with electromagnetic locks. He indicated the configuration was very common for security purposes.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent submitted that Stair A is an exit stair that serves the building, which has an occupant load greater than 100. Occupants exiting the building from Stair A travel through interior passageways to exterior doors on the north and east side of the building.
The Designate considers the path of travel form Stair A to the exterior to be an “exit system”, and as such, all doors must be equipped with panic hardware, and electromagnetic locks are not permitted on any of the doors in the path of travel to an exit.
It is the position of the Designate that the exterior doors may then not be equipped with electromagnetic locks, for the same reason the door leading from Stair A is not permitted to be equipped with an electromagnetic lock.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to install electromagnetic lock on the single exit door located on the east side of the building provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.4.1.4. and Clauses 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) and 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) of Division B of the Building Code at 155 Yorkville Ave, Toronto, Ontario.
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to install electromagnetic locks on the double exit doors on the north side of the building that have a latching mechanism provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.4.1.4. and Clauses 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) and 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) of Division B of the Building Code at 155 Yorkville Ave, Toronto, Ontario on condition that:
a) the latching mechanism is removed from the double exit doors
6. Reasons
i) Article 3.4.1.4. states:
(1) Subject to the requirements of this Section, an exit from any floor area shall be one of the following, used singly or in combination:
(a) an exterior doorway,
(b) an exterior passageway,
(c) an exterior ramp,
(d) an exterior stairway,
(e) a fire escape (conforming to Subsection 3.4.7.),
(f) a horizontal exit,
(g) an interior passageway,
(h) an interior ramp, or
(i) an interior stairway.
In this case we have a combination of (a) an exterior doorway, (g) an interior passageway and (i) an interior stairway. The exit is a combination of these elements.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the exterior doors from the lobby are, therefore, part of the exit from the exit stair shaft.
ii) Clauses 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) states:
(2) If a door is equipped with a latching mechanism, a device that will release the latch and allow the door to swing wide open when a force of not more than 90 N is applied to the device in the direction of travel to the exit shall be installed on, …
(b) every door leading to an exit lobby from an exit stair shaft, and every exterior door leading from an exit stair shaft in a building having an occupant load more than 100, ,…
Clause 3.4.6.16(5)(a) states:
(5) Except as permitted by Sentences (6) and (7), electromagnetic locks are not permitted to be installed on exit doors,
(a) described in Clause (2)(a), (b) or (c), ,…
The Commission heard testimony that the double doors at the north front of the building do incorporate a latching mechanism. The Commission understands that the single door on the east side of the building is not equipped with a latching mechanism. For Sentence 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) to apply, the door must be equipped with a latching mechanism.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the single door that is not equipped with a latching mechanism is not prohibited to have an electromagnetic lock by Sentence 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) because Sentence 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) does not apply.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the double doors that are equipped with a latching mechanism are not permitted to have an electromagnetic lock by Sentence 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) because Sentence 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) does apply to these doors.
Therefore, if the latching mechanism is removed from the double doors, Sentence 3.4.6.16 (2)(b) and subsequently 3.4.6.16.(5)(a) would then not apply.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 20th day in the month of January in the year 2021 for application number B-2020-22.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Alison Orr
Carolyn Bilson