BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No.: 21-12-1186
Application No.: B-2021-07
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 4.2.6.2. and 4.2.6.1. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the "Building Code").
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Allen and Debbie Sadler, for the resolution of a dispute with Randy Lovie, Chief Building Official to determine whether the proposed design for a one storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.5.1., Clause 3.2.5.1.(3)(i) of Division C, SB-12 EEDS Form, Articles 3.1.1.3., 4.2.3.4., 4.2.5.8., 4.2.6.2., 6.2.1.1., 9.12.2.2., 9.26.1.3, Sentences 4.2.6.1.(1), 9.12.1.1.(1), 9.12.1.1.(3), 9.12.3.2.(1), and 9.19.1.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 7560 Cornell Trail, Port Franks, Ontario.
APPLICANT Allen and Debbie Sadler Owners Port Franks, Ontario
RESPONDENT Randy Lovie Chief Building Official Lambton Shores Forest, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Matthew Graham Michael Gooch
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING July 13, 2021
DATE OF RULING July 13, 2021
APPEARANCES Allen and Debbie Sadler Owners Port Franks, Ontario The Applicant
Randy Lovie Chief Building Official Lambton Shores Forest, Ontario The Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit to construct a house, under the Building Code Act, 1992 at 7560 Cornell Trail, Port Franks, Ontario.
The subject building is a proposed one storey residential dwelling, Group C major occupancy building with an attached garage. Construction consists of slab on grade (no basement), insulated concrete form (ICF) walls, supported by footings and foundation below grade. The proposed building is located within the flood plain of Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority.
The dispute initially raised by the parties centered on whether the proposed design for a one storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.5.1., Clause 3.2.5.1.(3)(i) of Division C, SB-12 EEDS Form, Articles 3.1.1.3., 4.2.3.4., 4.2.5.8., 4.2.6.2., 6.2.1.1., 9.12.2.2., 9.26.1.3, Sentences 4.2.6.1.(1), 9.12.1.1.(1), 9.12.1.1.(3), 9.12.3.2.(1), and 9.19.1.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
As per Section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, the Commission's mandate is to determine sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code. At the outset of the hearing the Commission advised the parties that matters raised pertaining to Article 3.2.5.1., Clause 3.2.5.1.(3)(i) of Division C, and SB-12 EEDS Form were considered administrative in nature and not technical requirements of the Code and therefore, outside of the Commission's jurisdiction to determine.
At the hearing and upon agreement with the parties, reference to flood plain design as per Article 3.1.1.3. of Division B of the Code, was changed to Article 9.1.1.8., as the subject building falls under Part 9 of Division B of the Building Code. However, during the course of the hearing both parties subsequently agreed that this Building Code provision was not in dispute.
Further, Articles 4.2.3.4., 4.2.5.8., 6.2.1.1., 9.12.2.2., 9.26.1.3, Sentences 9.12.1.1.(1), 9.12.1.1.(3), 9.12.3.2.(1), and 9.19.1.3.(1) of Division B were initially raised by the parties as being in dispute. However, during the hearing and upon agreement of the parties these provisions of the Building Code were also determined to no longer be in dispute.
During the hearing and in response to the Commission's questions, the parties agreed that the two Building Code provisions in dispute were Articles 4.2.6.1. and 4.2.6.2. of Division B of the Building Code, which are related to the design of shallow foundations.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
4.2.6.1. Design of Shallow Foundations
(1) The design of shallow foundations shall be in conformance with the requirements of Subsection 4.2.4. and this Subsection.
4.2.6.2. Support of Shallow Foundations
(1) Where a shallow foundation is to be placed on soil or rock, the soil or rock shall be cleaned of loose and unsound material and shall be adequate to support the design load taking into account temperature, precipitation, construction activities and other factors that may lead to changes of the properties of soil or rock.
3. Applicant's Position
The Applicant submitted that he plans to construct a one storey house on a flood plain within the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. The Applicant indicated that the Respondent would not issue a building permit due to technical issues related to the foundation design.
The Applicant advised that a foundation conforming to Part 9 of Division B of the Building Code is being proposed for the subject building, as illustrated in drawing SG2 and that 1.2 m of soil cover over footings will be provided. The Applicant explained that the same proposal was accepted by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. The Applicant also maintained that footings were not located in a trench as illustrated in drawing SG2, and indicated he intends to construct foundations as shown with 1.2 m of soil cover over footings. The Applicant commented that the Chief Building Official is requiring a shallow foundation design for the house, consisting of 400 mm of fill and 1.2 m of insulation extending out from the foundation wall, which is not part of the plans he submitted for permit. In addition, the Applicant maintained that a shallow foundation design was not approved by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority.
The Applicant explained and provided written documentation that the footing bearing capacity established by a Geotechnical Engineer was below that permitted for design by Part 9 of the Building Code and provided a procedure to support the footings by building up the site with a 0.6 m compacted base. The Applicant noted that the Geotechnical Engineer report stated footings must be designed by a Structural Engineer and that all organic material must be removed across the building envelope. Reference was also made to Article 9.1.1.8. Building in Flood Plains of Division B of the Building Code related to good engineering practice.
4. Respondent's Position
The Respondent acknowledged that the Applicant submitted a design to construct a foundation conforming to Part 9 of Division B of the Building Code, which was provided in Drawing SG2. However, the Respondent indicated that multiple design versions had since been submitted or discussed. The Respondent advised that versions ranged from footings at grade with 1.2 m of fill, and footings in a trench extending 1.2 m below finished grade.
The Respondent noted that the grading plan shown on Drawing SG2, clearly illustrated that the footings would be located in a trench. The Respondent submitted that no information had been provided in support of a footing design on compacted base or footings at grade with 1.2 m of fill.
Also, the Respondent explained his conversation with the Applicant regarding footings on a 0.6 m compacted base with 400 mm of fill and compensating frost protection insulation.
The Respondent explained that to obtain Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority approval, typically foundations are constructed with only 400 mm of fill around the building. As a result of the of lack footing depth, frost protection would typically be provided with insulation extending out from the foundation wall. The Respondent also advised that he had not been provided with the Conservation Authority approval for any design.
The Respondent advised that information provided by the Applicant's Geotechnical Engineer indicated a compacted fill base for footing support, whereas the Applicant indicated footings at grade and further, drawing SG2 indicated footings in a trench. The Respondent advised that conclusive information regarding how the building would be supported had not been submitted.
Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed design of the foundation of the one storey residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 4.2.6.1.(1) and Article 4.2.6.2. of Division B of the Building Code at 7560 Cornell Trail, Port Franks, Ontario on condition that:
a) The foundation footings are designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code.
5. Reasons
i) Sentence 4.2.6.1.(1) and Article 4.2.6.2. of Division B of the Building Code, are requirements related to the design and construction of Shallow Foundations.
The Commission heard and was provided evidence that the allowable soil bearing capacity was below that specified by Part 9 of the Building Code for footing support. Therefore, footings would need to be designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code. This was confirmed by both parties and not in dispute.
Through the course of the hearing the Commission recognized that a foundation design, as detailed in drawing SG2, in accordance with Part 9 of the Building Code was presented to the Conservation Authority and is subject to conditions set forth by the Conservation Authority.
Subject to the footings being designed by a Structural Engineer, in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code, the Commission heard that the Applicant intends to build the rest of the foundation system using Part 9 of the Building Code. The Commission is of the opinion that this satisfies the requirements of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 13th day in the month of July in the year 2021 for application number B-2021-07.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Matthew Graham
Michael Gooch