Ruling No.: 21-06-1180
Application No.: B-2020-21
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 9.9.7.3.(1), 9.9.8.4.(1), 9.9.9.2.(1), and Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(b) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Kurtis Meloche, for the resolution of a dispute with William Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed egress design for Units B and C located on the second and third floor of a 3-storey residential building, which considers the interior shared staircase along with the upper and lower landings as part of a dead-end public corridor, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.9.7.3.(1), 9.9.8.4.(1), 9.9.9.2.(1), and Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(b) of Division B of the Building Code, at 56 Jones Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT Kurtis Meloche
Owner
Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT William Johnston
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Elektra Vrachas
Fred Barkhouse
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING March 9, 2021
DATE OF RULING March 9, 2021
APPEARANCES Geoffrey Moote
Moote Architect
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Cedric Barrera
Manager, Plans Review
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to renovate an existing residential building and construct a three-storey rear addition at 56 Jones Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing three-storey, Group C, residential building. It was originally a single-family dwelling that was converted to a multi-family dwelling. There are two existing basement dwelling units (Units D and E) with a third dwelling unit (Unit A) on the main floor.
The Applicant proposes to renovate the existing second and third floors and extend the building with a three-storey rear addition in order to create two new two-storey dwelling units (Unit B and Unit C).
An existing staircase connects all three levels (third floor, second floor, and main floor) and leads to the exterior at the main floor level. The two proposed new dwelling units (Units B and C) will be served by the same existing single staircase, whereas the three other existing suites have their own separate entrances. At the base of the existing staircase at main floor level, two new doors are proposed to facilitate entry and exiting from the proposed two new dwelling units. The two proposed exit doors are located such that one faces Jones Avenue and the other door on the south face of the building. These two exit doors are adjacent and in close proximity to each other. Where the new exterior door is proposed on the south face of the building, a new exterior landing with three steps is proposed to compensate for the difference in elevation between the existing interior landing at the base of the staircase and the exterior grade.
The construction in dispute involves the egress design of the existing interior shared staircase to serve the proposed two dwelling units (Unit B and Unit C) and whether sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.9.7.3.(1), 9.9.8.4.(1), 9.9.9.2.(1), Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(b) and Article 9.10.20.3. of Division B of the Building Code is achieved.
Article 9.10.20.3. Fire Department Access to Buildings of Division B of the Building Code was initially raised by the Respondent as being in dispute. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the requirements of this Article are applicable to the proposed construction. Furthermore, both parties agreed that it was a matter that is to be resolved between the Architect (Agent of the Owner) and the municipality. Upon agreement of the parties, this Article of the Building Code was deemed no longer in dispute and was removed.
The Building Code Commission was informed by the Respondent that what is currently under construction is not in accordance with the issued building permit. The parties acknowledged during the hearing that the proposed egress design, which is the subject of dispute before the Commission, was previously reviewed by the municipality and rejected.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.9.7.3. Dead-End Corridors
(1) A dead-end public corridor is permitted in an occupancy shown in Table 9.9.7.3., where,
(a) the dead-end corridor,
(i) does not exceed the distance of travel measured from the most remote point of the dead-end to a point where it is possible to go in opposite directions to each of two separate exits, and
(ii) is provided with doors equipped with self-closing devices, or
(b) there is a second and separate egress doorway from each room or suite not leading into the dead-end corridor.
Table 9.9.7.3. Dead-End Public Corridors
Forming Part of Sentence 9.9.7.3.(1)
Item
Column 1 Occupancy
Column 2 Maximum Length of Dead-End Public Corridor, m
Column 3 Maximum Occupant Load or Suites Served by Dead-End Public Corridor
Group C
6
4 suites
Group D
6
30
Group E
9
30
Group F
9
30
9.9.8.4. Location of Exits
(1) Where more than one exit is required from a floor area, at least two exits shall be independent of each other and be placed remote from each other along the path of travel between them.
9.9.9.2. Two Separate Exits
(1) Except as provided in Sentence 9.9.7.3.(1), where an egress door from a dwelling unit opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway it shall be possible from the location where the egress door opens onto the corridor or exterior passageway to go in opposite