Ruling No.: 22-07-1599
Application No.: B-2021-22
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 9.10.20.3. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Giovanni Galloro, for the resolution of a dispute with Will Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the fire department access proposed for a new laneway house provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.20.3. of Division B of the Building Code at 442 Maybank Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT Mr. Giovanni Galloro
Owner
Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT Will Johnston
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong
Dave Annable
Michael Gooch
PLACE Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING February 24, 2022
DATE OF RULING February 24, 2022
APPEARANCES Giovanni Galloro
Toronto, Ontario
Applicant
Ekaterina Tropynina
Designing Engineer
Agent for the Applicant
Tamer Mikhail
Manager, Plans Review
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Catherine Bologna
Manager, Plan Review
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Magged Matter
Building Code Examiner
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to build a laneway house at 442 Maybank Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
The proposed detached laneway house is a two-storey building that is located at the back of a residential lot that includes a single detached house in the front part of the same lot. The laneway house is proposed to be located adjacent to a public lane at the back of the lot. The first floor of the proposed laneway house includes vehicle parking, space for bicycle, mechanical and powder room. The second floor contains the main residential area.
The dispute before the Commission centers on whether the proposed fire department access for the detached laneway house meets the requirements of Article 9.10.20.3. of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 9.10.20.3. Fire Department Access to Buildings states:
(1) Access for fire department equipment shall be provided to each building by means of a street, private roadway or yard. (See Appendix A)
(2) Where access to a building as required in Sentence (1) is provided by means of a roadway or yard, the design and location of such roadway or yard shall take into account connection with public thoroughfares, weight of firefighting equipment, width of roadway, radius of curves, overhead clearance, location of fire hydrants, location of fire department connections and vehicular parking.
Appendix Note
A-9.10.20.3.(1) Fire Department Access Route Modification
In addition to other considerations taken into account in the planning of fire department access routes, special variations could be permitted for a house or residential building that is protected with an automatic sprinkler system. The sprinklers system must be designed in accordance with the appropriate NFPA standard and there must be assurances that the water supply pressure and quantity are unlikely to fail. These considerations could apply to buildings that are located on the side of hills and are not accessible by roads designed for fire fighting equipment and also for infill housing units that are located behind buildings on a given property.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the width of the shared mutual walkway that provides access from the street at the front of the property between the south wall of the existing two storey house and the adjacent south neighbouring property is a 1.0 m wide unobstructed path of travel. The Applicant explained that several attempts were made to execute a limiting distance agreement; however, the neighbour has refused the request. The Applicant further explained that the walkway had been used by fire fighters in the past to deal with a fire on the adjacent property.
The Applicant submitted that an alternative solution was proposed to provide effective fire protection via an automatic sprinkler system with visual indication of a fire in the suite with an exterior strobe light on the laneway side at the back of the lot. The Applicant also submitted that the proposed alternative solution is intended to mitigate the risk associated with the increased firefighter travel distance to the laneway house and that the sprinkler system can control or suppress fires in the early stages. This allows the fire fighters additional time to respond in the event of a fire.
The Applicant explained that the building materials used in the construction of the laneway house consists of timber framing with masonry blocks and the exterior is of non-combustible materials, with Type-X dry wall for the interior walls.
The Agent for the Applicant (“Agent”) submitted that this laneway house should not have to meet the requirements of Part 3 of the Building Code as it is a part 9 building.
The Agent contended that the mutual walkway that is registered on title is similar to a limiting distance agreement, and therefore the walkway should be permitted to be used for fire fighting access, as has been done in the past.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (“Designate”) explained that the City of Toronto developed guidelines in conjunction with experts including building code consultants, fire department and building department to address exceeding fire fighting access length to a laneway house to promote and encourage the development, while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. As a result, the length of the fire access route from the fire truck to the laneway house would be permitted to be increased from 45 m to 90 m, with the requirement of additional protection by sprinkling the building and providing an exterior strobe fire warning light and smoke alarm. Further, a fire hydrant is required to be located within 45 m of where the fire truck is parked.
The Designate submitted that the proposed additional fire protection measures consisting of automatic sprinklers, exterior strobe and smoke alarm/warning system are acceptable solutions to increase the travel distance for a fire fighter from 45 m to 90 m maximum in the guidelines. However, the Designate maintained that the proposed non-combustible cladding and construction are required for the zero-lot line and should not be considered to be additional compensating measures.
The Designate contended that the mutual walkway provided through the easement agreement with the neighbor cannot be relied on for fire department access, as the city is not a party to the easement. Therefore, it could be obstructed or removed from title with only the consent of the two landowners.
The Designate submitted that the Applicant did not provide any analysis which demonstrates that the proposed alternative solution will provide the same level of performance as the acceptable solution in Division B of the Building Code.
The Designate explained that Toronto Fire Service cannot suppress a fire if the distance between the fire truck and the hydrant exceeds 45 m and the distance between the fire truck and the house entrance exceeds 90 m.
The Designate submitted that the measured length of the fire access route from the hydrant to the fire truck (66 m) plus the unobstructed path of travel for the fire firefighter from the fire truck to the building (105 m) is approximately 171 m, and that these lengths are much greater than what has been established in the guidelines for maximum extended lengths.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the fire department access proposed for a new laneway house, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.20.3. of Division B of the Building Code at 442 Maybank Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission received evidence that the City of Toronto developed guidelines in conjunction with experts including building code consultants, fire department and building department to address exceeding fire fighting access length to a laneway house to promote and encourage the development while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. The Commission heard that the Applicant proposes to further extend the length of the fire access route beyond the already extended length in the City’s guidelines without demonstrating that the performance of the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the Building Code.
ii) The Applicant did not demonstrate that water pressure can be maintained over the proposed distances that are in excess of those provided in the City of Toronto’s guidelines.
iii) The Commission heard that the compensating measures of sprinkling the residential unit and providing exterior strobe warning light, as offered by the Applicant, are requirements of the City’s guidelines for the increase in length of fire access route. No additional measures are proposed to compensate for the proposed further extension beyond the City’s guidelines.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 24 day in the month of February in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-22.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Dave Annable
Michael Gooch