Ruling No.: 22-06-1598
Application No.: B-2021-21
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 Sentence 3.2.8.6.(6) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Pasut, for the resolution of a dispute with William Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed floor opening between the lobby area of Level 1 and the student residence lounge/amenity area at Level 2 of a new 9-storey residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, 3300 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT David Pasut Pomerleau Inc. Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT William M. Johnston Chief Building Official City of Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Christina Kalt Elektra Vrachas
PLACE via Teams Video Conference
DATE OF HEARING January 14, 2022
DATE OF RULING February 11, 2022
APPEARANCES James R. Ware LMDG Building Code Consultants Ltd. Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Steve Donnelly IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc. Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Josh Heisterkamp Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
Ashraf Michail Building Engineer City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a new 9-storey residential building for the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus at 3300 Ellesmere Road, Scarborough, Ontario.
The subject building is a new student residence containing a Group A, Division 2 major occupancy (Cafeteria) with Group D (Office) and Group F, Division 3 (Service and Storage) subsidiary occupancies at the ground floor level (Level 1). The second floor level (Level 2) contains a Group C (Residential) major occupancy and Group A, Division 2 (Lounge/Amenity) subsidiary occupancy. There is an interconnected floor space connecting the first storey (Level 1) and the storey next above it (Level 2). The building is of non-combustible construction and is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system, a fire alarm system and a standpipe and hose system.
The construction in dispute involves the interconnected floor space between the lobby area of Level 1 and the student residence lounge/amenity area on Level 2. The dispute between the two parties centres on whether the openings in the Level 2 floor assembly require special protection or whether the permission to waive the special protection, as provided in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) under certain conditions applies to this building.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 3.2.8.2. Exceptions to Special Protection
(6) An interconnected floor space need not conform to the requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. provided,
(a) the interconnected floor space consists of the first storey and the storey next above or below it, but not both,
(b) the interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and
(c) the interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D, Group E, or Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancies.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (“the Agent”) submitted that the openings in the Level 2 floor assembly are based on the application of Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code, which allows a floor opening between the first storey and the next storey above provided the building is sprinklered and the interconnected floor space contains only permitted occupancies of Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D, Group E, or Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancies.
According to the Agent, Level 2 contains a Group C (Residential) major occupancy with a portion of the floor area consisting of an interconnected floor space with a Group A, Division 2 (Lounge/Amenity) subsidiary occupancy. To address the presence of the Group C occupancy at Level 2, which is not a permitted occupancy in an interconnected floor space when applying the requirements of Clause 3.2.8.2.(6)(c) of Division B of the Building Code, the Agent proposed to separate the Group C major occupancy from the portion of the floor area containing the interconnected floor space by a vertical fire separation having the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the floor assemblies of this building (i.e. 2 h). The Agent submitted that compliance with Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code is achieved because of this measure and therefore the requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. are not applicable to this building.
The Agent described the exiting for the portions of the Level 2 floor area containing the Group C occupancy as having access to one exit that does not require travel through the interconnected floor space. The Agent also stated that the student residence suites (Group C major occupancy) are provided with two exits, with one of the two exits located in the lounge/amenity space (Group A, Division 2 occupancy) that contains the interconnected floor space. The Agent further explained that, in order to access the required second exit, the student residents would enter the public corridor within the student residence suites floor area, pass through a fire door into the lounge/amenity floor area, and cross a bridge that is located within the interconnected floor space open to floor Level 1 below. It was explained that the bridge is part of the path of travel to the required second exit for both the occupants of the student residence suites and the lounge/amenity space.
The Agent explained that a public corridor is not classified as any of the occupancies it serves. The Agent also described the bridge on the second floor level as a corridor providing access to the required second exit for the Group C residence suites and the Group A, Division 2 lounge/amenity spaces. The Agent further submitted that Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code does not specifically prohibit a public corridor providing access to exit from traversing through the interconnected floor space. The Agent also stated that because Level 2 is a sprinklered floor area and the travel distance from any part of the floor area to an exit is not more than 45 m, public corridors are not required to be fire separated from the remainder of the floor area, as permitted by Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B of the Building Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (“the Designate”) submitted that the exceptions to special protection outlined in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code do not apply to this building because the interconnected floor space contains a Group C occupancy.
The Designate explained that access to the second exit from the Group C occupancy requires occupants to traverse the interconnected floor space, which does not comply with Sentence 3.2.8.4.(5) of Division B of the Building Code.
Furthermore, the Designate stated that because the second required exit will be located within the interconnected floor space, the occupants of all residential suites (Group C major occupancy) located on the second floor level will be provided with only one exit.
As a result, the Designate submitted that the proposed design does not meet the prescriptive requirements of Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed floor opening between the lobby area of Level 1 and the student residence lounge/amenity area at Level 2 of a new 9-storey residential building does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of Division B of the Building Code at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, 3300 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Applicant proposed to create a 2 h fire separation to separate the Group C occupancy on Level 2 of the building from the interconnected floor space containing the Group A, Division 2 occupancy in which an exit is located. The Commission received evidence that in order to access the required second exit, all occupants of the Group C residential suites would be required to enter the lounge/amenity floor area containing the interconnected floor space and cross a bridge that opens onto Level 1 below.
It is the opinion of the Commission that the bridge (labelled as “corridor” on the floor plan) within the interconnected floor space on Level 2 is part of the required public corridor for the Group C student residence suites to access the required second exit. Therefore, the Group C student residence suites are not entirely separated from and independent of the interconnected floor space, and the proposed interconnected floor space does not meet the requirements of Clause 3.2.8.2.(6)(c) for exemption from providing special protection.
ii) The Commission received evidence that in order for the travel distance from any part of the floor area to an exit to be not more than 45 m, the occupants of the Group C suites at the south end of the residential floor areas, adjacent to the lounge/amenity space, would have to travel through the proposed 2 h fire separation into the interconnected space in order to reach an exit within 45 m.
Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B of the Building Code states:
(4) No fire separation is required in a sprinklered floor area between a public corridor and,
(a) except as required by Sentences 3.3.3.5.(9) and 3.3.4.2.(1) and notwithstanding Sentence 3.4.2.4.(2), the remainder of a storey provided the travel distance from any part of the floor area to an exit is not more than 45 m,
The Commission notes an exception for such permission is in Sentence 3.3.4.2.(1) being referenced in Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a), which requires that suites of residential occupancy shall be separated from each other and the remainder of the building by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less than 1 h.
As noted in reason i), the Commission is of the opinion that the bridge is part of the public corridor serving the Group C occupants and is required to be fire separated from the remainder of the floor area in accordance with Clause 3.3.4.2.(1). Therefore, the permission to waive the fire separation in a sprinklered floor area between the public corridor and the remainder of the storey, as per Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B of the Building Code, does not apply.
iii) The Commission received evidence confirming that the occupants of the second floor level Group C student residence suites are provided with only one exit within the residential floor areas and the required second exit is located within the interconnected floor space; through which the occupants must traverse in order to reach the required second exit.
Sentence 3.2.8.4.(5) of Division B of the Building Code states:
(5) Where a portion of a floor area is not within an interconnected floor space, required access to exit from such portion of a floor area shall not lead through an interconnected floor space.
It is the Commission’s opinion that sufficiency of compliance with this Sentence has not been achieved.
iv) No other compensating measures were proposed.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 11th day in the month of February in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-21.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Christina Kalt
Elektra Vrachas