Ruling No.: 22-09-1601
Application No.: B-2021-23
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 9.8.4.5. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Vicky Joan Rensberry, for the resolution of a dispute with Kelly Smith, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the as-constructed stairs located between the main floor and basement level of a one-story residential dwelling provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.4.5. of Division B of the Building Code at 28 Albert Street, Orillia, Ontario.
APPLICANT Vicky Joan Rensberry Owner Orillia, Ontario
RESPONDENT Kelly Smith Chief Building Official City of Orillia, Ontario
PANEL Alison Orr, Chair Designate Christina Kalt Michael Gooch
PLACE Teams video conference
DATE OF HEARING May 17, 2022
DATE OF RULING May 17, 2022
APPEARANCES Vicky Joan Rensberry Owner Orillia, Ontario Applicant
Betsy Speck Former Owner Orillia, Ontario Designate for the Applicant
Barry Evans Contractor for Former Owner Orillia, Ontario Designate for the Applicant
Kelly Smith Chief Building Official City of Orillia, Ontario Respondent
Robbie McQuillan Building Inspector City of Orillia, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies at 28 Albert Street, Orillia, Ontario.
The subject building is a Group C, one-storey- residential building with a building area of 87 m2.
The dispute before the Commission centres on the Building Code requirements for the as-constructed stairs located between the main floor and the basement level of the one-storey residential dwelling, and whether the stairs provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.4.5. of Division B of the Building Code at 28 Albert Street Orillia, Ontario.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 9.8.4.5. Winders
(1) Stairs within dwelling units are permitted to contain winders that converge to a centre point provided,
(a) the winders turn through an angle of not more than 90°,
(b) individual treads turn through and angle of not less than 30° or not more than 45°, and
(c) adjacent winders turn through the same angle.
(2) Where more than one set of winders described in Sentence (1) is provided in a single stairway between adjacent floor levels, such winders shall be separated in plan by at least 1 200 mm.
A-9.8.4.5. Winders.
The safest method of incorporating a change in direction of a stair is to use a landing. Within a dwelling unit, however, where the occupants are familiar with their environment, winders are an acceptable method of reducing the amount of floor area devoted to the stair and have not been shown to be more hazardous than a straight runoff steps. Nevertheless, care is required to ensure that winders are as safe as possible. Experience has shown that 30° winders are the best compromise and require the least change of natural gait of the stir user; 45° winders are also acceptable, as they are wider. The Code permits winders to turn through and angle between 30° and 45° inclusive. This allows winder-type stairs to change direction through any angle between 30° (1 winder) and 90° (2 or 3 winders).
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that she bought the house because of the renovation work that had already been completed. The Applicant further submitted that the stairs were one of her concerns, not because of any safety issue but to ensure that she would be able to negotiate them going forward in years to come.
The Applicant also indicated that the as-constructed stairs are one of the best features of the house as they are wide and provide her with a safe and easy descent to the basement.
The Applicant further submitted that it is her understanding that the stairs meet a past minimum code but are lacking a step under code provisions of today. The Applicant also confirmed that the home was recently renovated within the past three years. According to the Applicant, there is nothing wrong with the stairs and to order a new set is not only unfeasible but unnecessary.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent stated that the stairs from the main floor to the basement were removed and a new set with a new configuration was installed. The original stairs were a straight run. The new stairs contain two sets of winders that are not separated by the minimum distance of 1 200 mm.
The Designate explained that the permit drawings for the renovation indicated a straight run of stairs with one set of winders to the basement. A bathroom was added in the basement at some point during construction, that was not indicated in the original permit submission. As a result, the changes to the stairs were not discovered until a final inspection was requested. The added bathroom reduced the space available for the stairs.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed stairs located between the main floor and the basement level of a one-storey residential dwelling do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.4.5. of Division B of the Building Code at 28 Albert Street, Orillia, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The as-constructed stairs deviate substantially from the requirements of Division B of the Building Code, where the distance separating the two sets of winders is less than half of the 1 200 mm required by Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2). Therefore, the as-constructed stairs do not sufficiently comply with Article 9.8.4.5.
ii) No compensating measures were proposed.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 17th day in the month of May in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-22.
Alison Orr, Chair Designate
Christina Kalt
Michael Gooch