Ruling No.: 23-04-1618
Application No.: B-2022-19
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 3.1.7.1. and Sentences 3.1.8.4.(1) and 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Garth Halam-Andres, for the resolution of a dispute with Kamal Gogna, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal not to install fire shutters to meet the maximum allowable unprotected opening requirements on the north exterior wall of a new three-storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.7.1. and Sentences 3.1.8.4.(1) and 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 489 Parkside Drive, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT Garth Halam-Andres Owner Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT Kamal Gogna Acting Chief Building Official City of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Christina Kalt James Eduful
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING April 4, 2023 and May 16, 2023
DATE OF RULING May 16, 2023
APPEARANCES Garth Halam-Andres Owner Toronto, Ontario
Melvin Rosenow Project Designer Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Cedric Barrera Manager, Plan Review City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
Ljiljana Lukic Zoning Building Code Examiner City of Toronto Toronto, 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 new three-storey residential building at 489 Parkside Drive, Toronto, Ontario.
The subject building is of combustible construction, with the exception of the north exterior wall, which is of noncombustible construction due to the limiting distance on this building face. The north exterior wall also contains the condo pack units that serve each condo unit. The permit was issued on the basis that the condo pack units are considered unprotected openings and therefore, fire shutters are required to be installed at two basement windows on the north elevation.
The construction in dispute involves the construction of the fire rated enclosure on the interior surrounding the condo pack units. The hearing is for the Commission to determine whether the fire-resistance and fire-protection rating of this interior enclosure provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.7.1. and Sentences 3.1.8.4.(1) and 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, so that the openings at the condo pack units on the north exterior wall may be considered protected openings.
Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) was originally identified in the Application for Hearing to be in dispute. At the hearing, both parties agreed that this Sentence was no longer in dispute. The hearing took place over two days, April 4, 2023, and May 16, 2023, to allow the Applicant to submit additional information, as requested and received by the Commission.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.10.3.1. Fire-Resistance and Fire-Protection Ratings
(1) Where a fire-resistance rating or a fire-protection rating is required in this Section for an element of a building, such rating shall be determined in conformance with the test methods described in Part 3, or in accordance with MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, “Fire Performance Ratings”, or MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-3, “Fire and Sound Resistance of Building Assemblies”. (See Appendix A.)
3.1.7.1. Determination of Ratings
(1) Except as permitted by Sentence (2) and Articles 3.1.7.2. and 3.6.3.5., the rating of a material, assembly of materials or a structural member that is required to have a fire-resistance rating, shall be determined on the basis of the results of tests conducted in conformance with CAN/ULC-S101, “Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials”.
(2) A material, assembly of materials or a structural member is permitted to be assigned a fire-resistance rating on the basis of MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, “Fire Performance Ratings”.
3.1.8.4. Determination of Ratings
(1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) and 3.1.8.14.(1), the fire-protection rating for a closure shall be determined in accordance with,
(a) CAN/ULC-S104, “Fire Tests of Door Assemblies”,
(b) CAN/ULC-S106, “Fire Tests of Window and Glass Block Assemblies”, or
(c) CAN/ULC-S112, “Fire Test of Fire Damper Assemblies”.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the fire rated enclosures, including the access panels, on the interior surrounding the condo pack units provide the required fire-resistance and fire-protection rating. He further indicated that these fire rated enclosures are constructed in accordance with MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, “Fire Performance Ratings,” as noted in a letter provided by his engineer. Therefore, according to the Applicant, the condo pack units can be considered protected openings. The Applicant also confirmed that fire dampers were installed in the supply and return ducts from the condo pack units.
The Agent for the Applicant (the Agent) further submitted that the steel construction of the condo pack units exceeds the construction of a fire rated fire shutter, as outlined in the letter provided by the manufacturer. Therefore, according to the Agent, the use of condo pack units provides at least a 1 hour fire-resistance rating equivalent to that provided by the installation of fire rated fire shutters, as required by the permit. For this reason, the Agent submitted that the condo pack units can be considered protected openings and need not be included in the exposing building face and unprotected openings calculations.
As a result, the Applicant is of the opinion that the fire shutters on the two basement windows on the north elevation are not required in order to comply with Section 9.10 of Division B of the Building Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (the Designate) submitted that the limiting distance of the north elevation is 1.22 m and the area of the exposing building face is 190 m2. Based on these parameters and Table 9.10.14.4. of Division B of the Building Code, the allowable area of unprotected openings on the north elevation is 7%. According to the Respondent, the area of each of these condo pack units is 0.7 m2 and there is a total of five units located on the north elevation.
The Designate further submitted that the exposing building face for the north exterior wall requires a minimum fire-resistance rating of 1 hour with noncombustible construction and noncombustible cladding, as per Table 9.10.14.5. of Division B of the Building Code. According to the Designate, the Applicant’s fire rated enclosures do not demonstrate compliance with Article 3.1.7.1., either through compliance with CAN/ULC-S101 or MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-2, as they are of combustible construction. The access panels on the fire rated enclosures surrounding the condo pack units similarly do not comply as closures and their assembly is of combustible construction.
According to the Designate, the evidence provided by the Applicant regarding the condo pack units, which included technical specifications and a letter from the manufacturer, does not adequately demonstrate compliance with the required fire-resistance rating for the north exterior wall. More specifically, the letter from the manufacturer does not provide sufficient justification or explanation as to how the condo pack units achieve the required fire-resistance rating, as per Subsection 3.1.7. of Division B of the Building Code or conform as closures under Subsection 3.1.8. of Division B of the Building Code.
For these reasons, the openings for the condo pack units in the north exterior wall are considered unprotected openings. A permit has been issued with the fire shutters noted for the two ground floor windows, so that the maximum allowable area of unprotected openings is not exceeded.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal not to install fire shutters to meet the maximum allowable unprotected opening requirements on the north exterior wall of a new three-storey residential building does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.7.1. and Sentences 3.1.8.4.(1) and 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 489 Parkside Drive, Toronto, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission heard evidence that in order for the condo pack units to be considered protected openings, a 1 hour fire-resistance rating is required. The evidence submitted by the Applicant did not adequately demonstrate that the condo pack units, by way of testing or listing certification for fire-resistance rating, as determined by Article 3.1.7.1. and Sentence 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the condo pack unit openings on the north exterior wall of the subject building are to be considered unprotected openings.
ii) While the parties agreed that the exposing building face of the north exterior wall is required to be of noncombustible construction and noncombustible cladding, the Commission received evidence submitted by the Applicant confirming that the fire rated enclosures surrounding the condo pack units are of combustible construction.
iii) The evidence submitted by the Applicant regarding the fire-protection rating of the access panels for the enclosures surrounding the condo pack units does not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with Sentences 3.1.8.4.(1) and 9.10.3.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 16th day in the month of May in the year 2023 for application number S-2022-19.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Christina Kalt
James Eduful