Ruling No.: 22-02-1594
Application No.: B 2021-08
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) and Sentence 3.8.3.4.(3) of Division B of the Building Code
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Kay, of 1880551 Ontario Limited, for the resolution of a dispute with Lisa Capener-Hunt, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the as-constructed front lobby serving the entrance of a 6-storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) and Sentence 3.8.3.4.(3) of Division B of the Building Code at 720 Princess St, Kingston, Ontario.
APPLICANT David Kay
1880551 Ontario Ltd.
Kingston, Ontario
RESPONDENT Lisa Capener-Hunt
Chief Building Official
City of Kingston
Kingston, Ontario
PANEL Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Leszek Muniak
David Annable
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING January 11, 2022
DATE OF RULING January 11, 2022
APPEARANCES David Kay
1880551 Ontario Ltd.
Kingston, Ontario
The Applicant
Lisa Capener-Hunt
Chief Building Official
City of Kingston
Kingston, Ontario
The Respondent
Adam Clarke
Senior Building Official
Building Services Department
City of Kingston
Kingston, Ontario
The Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has obtained a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a residential building at 720 Princess Street, Kingston, Ontario.
The subject building is a new 6 storey addition to an existing two-storey building of Group C major occupancy. The building area is 6000 m².
The dispute between the two parties centres on whether the main entrance and lobby of the newly constructed six storey residential building with 94 units, which does not have a level area on each side of the double doors, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) and Sentence 3.8.3.4.(3) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions in Dispute
Building Code. Division B
3.8.3.3. Doorways and Doors
(13) Except as provided in Clause 3.8.3.4.(1)(c), the floor surface on each side of a door in a barrier-free path of travel shall be level within a rectangular area,
(a) as wide as the door plus the clearance required on the latch side by Sentence (10), and
(b) whose dimension perpendicular to the closed door is not less than the width of the barrier-free path of travel but need not exceed 1 500 mm.
3.8.3.4. Ramps
(3) Floors or walks in a barrier-free path of travel having a slope steeper than 1 in 20 shall be designed as ramps.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the Architect of record was not representing him at the hearing, as the Architect had left the firm and no representative of the architectural firm was assigned as representative for this hearing.
The Applicant advised that the lobby was designed to be on a level floor and included a vestibule with key-fob access. He explained that there was an intercom placed in the middle of the lobby, which allows for communications with tenants for deliveries and guests in order to control access to the building.
The Applicant reported that during construction a change was made to the lobby entrance of the building. In the original submission for building permit, the lobby and front entrance consisted of a level floor. He advised that during construction, the floor elevation was changed to create an approximate 1 in 30 sloped floor at the entrance lobby to the building. He described that this sloped floor is part of an entrance lobby, and the inner doors of the lobby are located on the sloped floor.
The Applicant explained that the sloped floor, resulting from the change in design from the original submission was not considered to be a ramp by the design architect and therefore, no flat surface was provided on either side of the inner doors of the lobby vestibule. As such, the Applicant argued the vestibule doors should be permitted to exist as constructed.
The Applicant submitted that a revision to the permit drawings was submitted to the building department for the change in the floor slope, but the revision was not approved. As a result, the lobby was constructed as per the unapproved revision and an Order to Comply was subsequently issued by the City of Kingston
The Applicant stated that since the completion of the construction, there have been no issues or complaints regarding the use of the vestibule doors by tenants with accessibility needs and using wheelchairs and walkers.
The Applicant agreed that the inner vestibule doors in the main entrance lobby do not have a flat area on either side.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent stated that the original drawings submitted for the construction of the residential building in 2017 did not indicate a slope in the lobby corridor floor. A level lobby corridor and entrance vestibule were shown on the drawings. He explained that the level vestibule was located within the lobby corridor of the main floor between the elevator lobby and the principal entrance of the building and that double doors form the inner doors of the entrance vestibule.
The Designate submitted that the entrance lobby is part of a required barrier free path of travel. He advised that the exceptions listed in the Building Code for waiver of barrier-free design requirements cannot be applied to this building.
The Designate reported that in 2019 revised construction drawings were submitted showing the floor within the entrance lobby corridor to be constructed with a slope of 1 in 20.
The Designate advised that the double doors forming the vestibule have been constructed in the middle of the sloped floor and are not in compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of the Code. He submitted that since the floor is sloped with a slope less than 1 in 20, it is not required to be designed as a ramp but does require a flat rectangular area on each side of the inner vestibule double doors that extends not less than the width of the path of travel but not more than 1500 mm.
In summary it was the Designate’ s position that, as constructed, the design of the entrance lobby vestibule is not compliant with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of the Building Code.
- Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed front lobby floor serving the entrance of a 6-storey residential building, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) and that Sentence 3.8.4.3.(3) of Division B of the Building Code is not applicable at 720 Princess St, Kingston, Ontario.
6. Reason
- Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of Division B of the Building Code states:
Except as provided in Clause 3.8.3.4.(1)(c), the floor surface on each side of a door in a barrier-free path of travel shall be level within a rectangular area,
(a) as wide as the door plus the clearance required on the latch side by Sentence (10), and
(b) whose dimension perpendicular to the closed door is not less than the width of the barrier-free path of travel but need not exceed 1 500 mm.
The Commission heard that the floor, including the area on each side of the door located in the vestibule of the principal entrance of the building, has been constructed with a slope between 1/25 and 1/30. However, although the requirements for ramps may be exempt where the slope is less than 1:20, doors and doorways are required to meet the barrier-free path of travel conditions.
Based on the evidence presented, the Commission agrees with the Respondent that the as-constructed sloped floor on each side of the vestibule door is not deemed a level surface as required by the Building Code.
The Commission was not provided with any alternative solutions or compensating measures for consideration.
Insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate an equivalent level of performance associated with Division A, Subsection 1.1.2. of the Building Code relating to the objectives or functional statements, F73 and OA1 attributed to Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) which are as follows:
To facilitate access to and circulation in the building and its facilities by persons with physical or sensory disabilities.
To limit the probability that, as a result of the design or construction of a building, a person with a physical or sensory disability will be unacceptably impeded from accessing the building or circulating within it.
The Commission notes that although the building requires general review by an architect the Applicant did not have architectural support for this hearing.
- Sentence 3.8.4.3.(3) of Division B states:
Floors or walks in a barrier-free path of travel having a slope steeper than 1 in 20 shall be designed as ramps. (See Appendix A.)
The Commission heard both parties agree that the sloped floor in question is not considered a ramp. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that Sentence 3.8.4.3.(3) is not applicable in this case.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 11th day in the month of January in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-08.
Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Leszek Muniak
David Annable