Ruling No.: 23-15-1629
Application No.: B-2023-08
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 Articles 9.8.3.1., 9.8.4.3. and 9.8.4.6. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Murray Dietz, for the resolution of a dispute with Peter Kokkoros, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the dimensions for tapered treads of the as-installed stairs serving three levels of a residential dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.3.1., 9.8.4.3. and 9.8.4.6. of Division B of the Building Code at 84 Tallwood Circle, London, Ontario.
APPLICANT Murray Dietz
1312983 Ontario Inc.,
East London, Ontario
RESPONDENT Peter Kokkoros
Chief Building Official
City of London
London, Ontario
PANEL Matt Graham, Chair Designate
Elektra Vrachas
Michael Gooch
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING October 3, 2023
DATE OF RULING October 3, 2023
APPEARANCES Carl Roes
Roes Stair Corp.
Mt. Brydges, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Peter Kokkoros
Chief Building Official
City of London
Kitchener, Ontario
Respondent
Scott Carr
Senior Plan/Building Inspector
Building Division, Planning and Economic Development
City of London
Kitchener, Ontario
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 three-storey single detached dwelling at 84 Tallwood Circle, London, Ontario.
The subject building is a new, three-storey, single detached dwelling (Group C, Residential Occupancy) that has a building area of 216 m2 and is of combustible construction.
The Applicant received from the City of London a building code deficiency notice dated February 15, 2023 indicating that the as-built interior stair leading from the main floor to the second floor does not comply with the requirements of the Building Code.
The dispute between the two parties centers on whether the as-built interior stair leading from the main floor to the second floor meets the Building Code requirements for Straight and Curved Runs in Stairs, Dimensions for Tapered Treads and Leading Edges of Treads as set out in Articles 9.8.3.1., 9.8.4.3. and 9.8.4.6. of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.8.3.1. Straight and Curved Runs in Stairs
(1) Except as permitted in Sentence (2), stairs shall consist of,
(a) straight flights,
(b) curved flights, or
(c) spiral stairs.
(2) Stairs within houses and individual dwelling units may consist of,
(a) flights with rectangular treads and winders provided winders as described in Article 9.8.4.5. are installed between floor levels, or
(b) flights with a mix of rectangular and tapered treads provided all tapered treads within a flight turn in the same direction.
(3) Curved flights in exits shall comply with Sentence 3.4.6.9.(2).
(4) Spiral stairs shall comply with Article 9.8.4.5A.
9.8.4.3. Dimensions for Tapered Treads
(1) Except as provided in Sentence (2) and Articles 9.8.4.5. and 9.8.4.5A., tapered treads shall have a run that,
(a) is not less than 150 mm at the narrow end of the tread, and
(b) complies with the dimensions for rectangular treads specified in Table 9.8.4.1. when measured at a point 300 mm from the centre line of the inside handrail.
(2) Tapered treads in required exit stairs shall conform to the requirements in Article 3.4.6.9.
(3) The depth of a tapered tread shall be not less than its run at any point and not more than its run at any point plus 25 mm.
9.8.4.6. Leading Edges of Treads
(1) Leading edges of treads that are bevelled or rounded shall,
(a) not reduce the required tread depth by more than 15 mm, and
(b) not, in any case, exceed 25 mm horizontally.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (the “Agent”) stated that he designed, manufactured and installed the custom “feature” staircase at 84 Tallwood Circle, London, Ontario. The Agent described the installed custom-built staircase as an elliptical stair consisting of all tapered treads.
The Agent submitted that the custom-built staircase was installed between June 20-22, 2022 and the associated handrails were completed for the home final inspection on or about February 15, 2023. In response to a question, the Agent submitted that a mock-up of the custom-built staircase was never built for inspection purposes nor was the as-built stair ever inspected. Following the Inspector’s inspection for the handrails, the Agent submitted that they received a deficiency notice, dated February 15, 2023, that identified issues with the custom-built staircase. The Agent cited the specific deficiency as, “…irregular stair provided, indicate in revision accurate revision of steps including runs and dimensions.”
The Agent stated that a dimensioned drawing (Exhibit D-(6)) of the as-built stair was submitted as per the Inspector’s request. The Agent submitted the response received was that the deficiency remained in effect because the stair steps do not qualify as rectangular, tapered, winder or spiral treads as defined by the Building Code.
The Agent submitted that they subsequently appealed to the Manager of Building Inspections. The Agent stated that the Manager responded by dissecting the subject staircase into two distinct sections (i.e. steps 1 to 7 starting from the main floor and steps 8 to 18), in explaining that neither section complied with the Code for a straight run or consecutive tapered treads. The Agent argued that it was not reasonable to consider the as-built stair as a combination of two separate segments, i.e. straight and curved, and emphasized that it should be considered as one curved stair. The Agent further argued that nowhere does it state in the Code that tapered treads cannot be used in a straight stair configuration or the combination of straight/rectangular and tapered treads are forbidden. The Agent also described the as-built stair as a flight that is a single unit in which steps 8 to 18 form part of this single curved stair unit and are therefore, allowed to be tapered. In response to questions, the Agent submitted that there was no straight section in this stair system and that it was an elliptical, curved stair in its entirety.
In response to questions, the Agent submitted that the bottom first three steps starting from the main floor had run dimensions that varied from 249 mm to 267 mm. The Agent further submitted that the 249 mm dimension on the drawing (Exhibit D-(6)) did not represent the dimension for the run of each tread. The Agent explained that there is a variation in the run dimension for each tread which is permitted by the Building Code. The Agent submitted that the nosing projected a horizontal dimension of 38 m beyond the riser.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (the “Designate”) stated that the as-built interior stair leading from the main floor to the second floor was never previously inspected and was discovered during the interior final inspection for occupancy. And further, it was at that time that it was discovered that the as-built stair was not built in accordance with the approved permit nor was it built in compliance with the Building Code.
The Designate described the stair as consisting of two distinct sections: an upper half of steps with a straight run section and a lower half of steps converging to a curved section towards the bottom of the stair. The Designate further described the steps within the straight run as having a trapezium shape that do not qualify as rectangular or tapered treads with respect to the Building Code.
The Designate also described the steps within the straight run section as not uniform because the dimensions and angles vary. And further, the Designate stated that the steps within the straight run of the upper steps should be rectangular in shape as required by the Building Code. The Designate also stated that the as-built steps do not meet the Building Code requirements with respect to dimensions for rectangular treads or tapered treads.
The Designate submitted that the nosings of the treads in the as-built stair measured 38 mm which exceeds the maximum 25 mm permitted in the Building Code. And therefore, the nosing is not in compliance with the requirements in Article 9.8.4.6. Leading Edges of Treads.
In response to a question, the Designate confirmed that the dimensions noted in the drawing Exhibit D(6) of the subject stair, were confirmed on site. The Designate also submitted that at the time of the inspection, the steps were found to have an incline, varying angles and varied runs.
The Designate explained that the variations in the treads having constant changes of angles within the straight run section could pose a safety hazard for those ascending and descending the stairs.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the Building Code Commission’s decision that the dimensions for tapered treads of the as-installed stairs serving the main and second floor of the residential dwelling, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.3.1., 9.8.4.3. and 9.8.4.6. of Division B of the Building Code at 84 Tallwood Circle, London, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission understands that Sentence 9.8.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code permits stairs to consist of straight flights and curved flights. The Commission notes that there is an exception given for this Sentence by Sentence 9.8.3.1.(2), which permits only certain combinations of these stair types within an individual dwelling unit. Exception Clause 9.8.3.1.(2)(b) permits a stair to consist of a flight with a mix of rectangular and tapered treads provided all tapered treads within a flight turn in the same direction.
The Commission received evidence and heard testimony that the as-installed staircase consists solely of a curved flight with treads that did not turn in the same direction because of their varying angles.
Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the as-built staircase does not meet the requirement for a straight flight nor a curved flight. And further, it is the Commission’s opinion that the as-built staircase does not consist of a flight with a mix of rectangular and tapered treads.
ii) The Commission notes that tapered tread is a defined term in Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. of the Code.
Tapered tread means a tread with non-parallel edges that increases or decreases its run uniformly over its width.
The Commission received evidence and heard testimony that the as-built staircase consists of a flight comprised of curved steps with varying angles and varied run dimensions.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the as-installed staircase is not considered to have tapered treads in accordance with the definition for tapered treads. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that Article 9.8.4.3. of Division B of the Code is not applicable to the subject staircase.
iii) The Commission notes that Article 9.8.4.6. of Division B of the Code requires the leading edge of treads i.e., the nosing, to not exceed the maximum permitted horizontal distance of 25 mm.
The Commission heard and received evidence that the nosing in the as-built staircase has a horizontal dimension of 38 mm.
Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the leading edges of the treads (nosings) of the as-built staircase does not meet the requirements of Article 9.8.4.6. of Division B of the Code.
iv) The Commission notes the functional and objective statements attributed to Sentence 9.8.3.1.(2) forming part of Article 9.8.3.1. of Division B of the Code:
“To limit the probability that excessive variance in the configuration of stairs within dwelling units will excessively disrupt the gait of users, which could lead to persons misstepping and tripping in an emergency, which could lead to delays in the evacuation or movement of persons to a safe place. This is to limit the probability of harm to persons.
The Commission heard and received evidence that there is excessive variance occurring in the configuration of the as-built staircase.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the as-built staircase does not meet the objectives and functional statements attributed to Article 9.8.3.1. of Division B of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 3rd day in the month of October in the year 2023 for application number B-2023-08.
Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Elektra Vrachas
Michael Gooch