Citation: Bracket v. MacNaughtan 2023 ONBCC 12
Ruling No.: 23-12-1626
Application No.: B 2023-09
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 Clauses 3.4.4.1.(1)(a) and (b) and Clause 3.4.4.4.(1)(d) of Division B of Regulation 332/12 as amended (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Danny Bracket, Orangeville Volkswagen, 1000167214 Ontario Ltd. for the resolution of a dispute with Becky MacNaughtan, Chief Building Official, County of Dufferin, to determine whether the proposed major occupancy classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2 for a car dealership, which includes a showroom for displaying vehicles, sales offices and a large repair garage, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.2.1.(1), 3.2.2.5.(1), and 3.2.2.6.(1) and Article 3.2.2.62. of Division B of the Building Code at Orangeville Volkswagen, located at 63322 Hwy10/24, Mono, Ontario.
APPLICANT Danny Brackett 1000167214 Ontario Inc., Mono, Ontario
RESPONDENT Becky MacNaughtan Chief Building Official County of Dufferin Orangeville, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Christina Kalt Leszek Muniak
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING August 29, 2023
DATE OF RULING August 31, 2023
APPEARANCES Danny Brackett 1000167214 Ontario Inc., Mono, Ontario Applicant
Glen Good Building Code Consulting & Training New Hamburg, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Mark Hicks D+H Architects Inc. Orangeville, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Wesley Gowing D+H Architects Inc. Orangeville, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Becky MacNaughtan Chief Building Official County of Dufferin Orangeville, Ontario Respondent
Doug Kopp Plans Examiner County of Dufferin Orangeville, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for and received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct an addition to the existing Orangeville Volkswagen car dealership and repair garage, at 6332222 Highway 10/24 in Mono, Ontario.
The existing building is described as a two-storey building. The vehicle showroom, sale offices and repair garage are located on the ground floor, with offices, meeting and lunch rooms and parts storage on the second floor. The existing building area is about 1 320 m2 and the building is not sprinklered, nor is it equipped with a fire alarm system. The proposal in question consists of a new one-storey 361 m2 addition to the building that will provide an indoor vehicle drop-off area for customers accessing the existing repair garage services. The new building area with the addition is about 1 681 m2.
The dispute between the two parties centres on determining the major occupancy classification for the subject car dealership building when the new addition for the customer vehicle drop-off area is added.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Commission heard that a building permit had been issued with conditions and the permit was accepted by the Applicant. Evidence was provided by the Applicant that, subsequent to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant corresponded with the Respondent regarding the conditions of the permit, including the major occupancy classification, and a dispute arose. The Commission accepted the e-mail correspondence as indicative of a formal dispute between the parties in order to expedite the hearing. The parties agreed to proceed with the hearing on that basis.
In response to the Commission’s questions, the parties agreed that Sentence 3.1.1.2.(1) was incorrectly identified in the Application and the Hearing Notice as a matter in dispute, and that Sentence 3.1.2.1.(1) is the Building Code reference in dispute.
The amended dispute for the Commission to determine is whether the proposed major occupancy classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2 for a car dealership, which includes a showroom for displaying vehicles, sales offices and a large repair garage, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.2.1.(1), 3.2.2.5.(1), and 3.2.2.6.(1) and Article 3.2.2.62. of Division B of the Building Code.
Additional information from the Applicant was requested by the Commission after the hearing, and the information was subsequently received.
2. Provisions in Dispute
Building Code. Division B
3.1.2.1. Classification of Buildings
(1) Except as provided by Articles 3.1.2.3. to 3.1.2.7., every building or part of it shall be classified according to its major occupancy as belonging to one of the Groups or Divisions described in Table 3.1.2.1. (See Appendix A.)
3.2.2.5. Applicable Building Height and Area
(1) In determining the fire safety requirements of a building in relation to each of the major occupancies contained in it, the building height and building area of the entire building shall be used.
3.2.2.6. Multiple Major Occupancies
(1) Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.2.7. and 3.2.2.8. and Sentences 3.2.2.42A.(4), 3.2.2.43A.(5), 3.2.2.49A.(3) and 3.2.2.50A.(4), in a building containing more than one major occupancy, the requirements of this Subsection for the most restricted major occupancy contained shall apply to the whole building.
3.2.2.62. Group E, up to 2 Storeys, Sprinklered
(1) A building classified as Group E is permitted to conform to Sentence (2) provided,
(a) except as permitted by Sentence 3.2.2.7.(1), the building is sprinklered,
(b) it is not more than 2 storeys in building height, and
(c) it has a building area not more than,
(i) 3 000 m 2 if 1 storey in building height, or
(ii) 1 800 m 2 if 2 storeys in building height.
(2) The building referred to in Sentence (1) is permitted to be of combustible construction or noncombustible construction used singly or in combination, and,
(a) floor assemblies shall be fire separations with a fire-resistance rating not less than 45 min, and
(b) loadbearing walls, columns and arches shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that required for the supported assembly.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (“the Agent”) submitted that the proposed new 361 m2 addition is an extension of the original car dealership building classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy, and will provide an indoor vehicle drop-off area for customers accessing the repair garage. As such, the Agent argued that this new addition should be classified as a Group F, Division 3 occupancy, similar to a storage garage.
The Agent stated that the original building contains an existing showroom, sale offices, administrative offices and a large repair garage, and does not have a sprinkler system. As such, the Agent submitted that the original building appeared to have been classified and built as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy without sprinklers or water supply for firefighting. The Agent further submitted that there is no direct access to on or off-site nearby hydrants and the proposed addition is exempt from having to provide additional water supply for fire fighting since the floor area is less than 400 m2 (actual 361 m2), as per A-3.2.5.7.(4)(b) of Appendix A of the Building Code. The Agent also stated that because the existing building is not sprinklered, there would be a significant cost associated with providing a sprinkler system for the addition if the requirements of Article 3.2.2.62. for a Group E major occupancy were to be applied to the building.
In addition, the Agent submitted that the repair garage is open for the general public and not for the car dealership only. The Agent further submitted that the repair garage must be classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy and the showroom and offices to be classified as a Group D major occupancy. The Agent disagreed that selling cars would render the building to be classified as a Group E major occupancy. As such, the Agent concluded that this building would have Group D and Group F, Division 2 major occupancies, of which the Group F, Division 2 occupancy would be considered the most restrictive classification.
The Agent stated that the repair garage will be fire separated from the new customer vehicle drop-off area and the existing vehicle showroom by a fire separation with a 2 hour fire resistance rating. At the request of the Commission, additional drawings were submitted to the Commission after the hearing to confirm the locations of the fire separations.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent stated that the primary use of a car dealership is to sell cars. As such, the entire building should be classified as a Group E major occupancy. The repair garage would be considered a secondary/subsidiary use and would be classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy.
The Respondent further stated that the Group E major occupancy is the most restrictive building classification (as per Article 3.2.2.62.) with respect to the total building area of the entire building with the new addition, as determined by applying Sentences 3.2.2.5.(1) and 3.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
The Respondent indicated that even though the existing property does not have existing onsite water storage for firefighting, the proposed addition would not be exempt from having additional water supply for firefighting even if the floor area is less than 400 m2. The Respondent stated that only the addition would have to be sprinklered since there is no pathway in the Building Code to require sprinklers for the entire building.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed major occupancy classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2 for a car dealership, which includes a showroom for displaying vehicles, sales offices and a large repair garage, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.2.1.(1), 3.2.2.5.(1), and 3.2.2.6.(1) and Article 3.2.2.62. of Division B of the Building Code at Orangeville Volkswagen, located at 63322 Hwy -10/24, Mono, Ontario.
6. Reason
i) Both parties agree that Sentence 3.1.2.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code for Classification of Buildings is applicable and therefore, there was no dispute with this Sentence.
ii) Based on information presented by the Agent for the Applicant, the Commission heard that the fuel load in both the service drive addition, containing the customer vehicle drop-off area, and the existing showroom is considered to be low. It is the Commission’s opinion that the principal use of the building is Group F, Division 2 major occupancy for the repair garage with the new service drive addition, and that the showroom area is a Group D major occupancy. Therefore, Article 3.2.2.62. for Group E major occupancy is not applicable. It is also the Commission’s opinion that sufficiency of compliance is achieved for the requirements of Sentence 3.2.2.5.(1) for Applicable Building Height and Area, and Sentence 3.2.2.6.(1) for Multiple Major Occupancies of Division B of the Building Code.
iii) Further, the Commission heard that a 2 hour fire separation has been provided between the repair garage, the new addition and the automobile showroom area. This was confirmed by the additional drawings submitted by the Applicant’s Agent, which was requested by the Commission after the hearing.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 31st day in the month of August in the year 2023 for application number B-2023-09.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Christina Kalt
Leszek Muniak