Ruling No.: 24-01-1635
Application No.: B-2023-18
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 Sentence 6.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by George Sedra, for the resolution of a dispute with Fritz Enzlin, Chief Building Official, Norfolk County, to determine whether the proposed rooftop terminations for exhaust hood, ducts, and fan for a pizza restaurant, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 6.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, at 18 Alice Street, Waterford, Ontario.
APPLICANT George Sedra
GS Engineering
Cambridge, Ontario
RESPONDENT Fritz Enzlin
Chief Building Official
Norfolk County
Simcoe, Ontario
Scott Northcott
Senior Building Inspector
Norfolk County
Simcoe, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Leszek Muniak
Alexandra Chow
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING January 23, 2024
DATE OF RULING February 2, 2024
APPEARANCES George Sedra
GS Engineering
Cambridge, Ontario
Applicant
Fritz Enzlin
Chief Building Official
Norfolk County
Simcoe, Ontario
Respondent
Scott Northcott
Senior Building Inspector
Norfolk County
Simcoe, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to renovate the ground floor of an existing building, at 18 Alice Street, Waterford, Ontario.
The building in question is an existing two-storey mixed occupancy, with mercantile occupancy (Group E) on the ground floor and residential occupancy (Group C) on the second floor. The ground floor is proposed to be renovated to accommodate a pizza shop.
The building has a 5.34 m (17.5 ft) frontage based on legal description. The property line is right at the exterior wall from side to side. The rear side of the building is more than 6 m (20 ft) from property line. There is a parking lot behind the building.
The dispute between the two parties centres on whether the installation/arrangement of the proposed rooftop termination of the exhaust ducts from the pizza oven conforms to NFPA 96 requirements, referenced under Sentence 6.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
After the hearing held on January 23, 2024 concluded, the parties were asked to submit additional information regarding the connection of the exhaust system to the exhaust hood over the oven, and to confirm the additional measures proposed for the installation that the Applicant discussed during the hearing. The additional information submitted by the Applicant included a letter of explanation and a revised engineering drawing M2 titled “HVAC & Clearance” (marked as updated January 30), both submitted on January 31, 2024, confirming the following:
(1) A listed fire damper will be installed at the collar of the exhaust duct as it enters the hood exhaust opening.
(2) A standard filter will be installed instead of an ecology unit which was discussed at the hearing.
(3) The exterior portion of the exhaust duct will extend approximately 1.53 m (6 feet) above the roof of the building,
(4) 3M fire barrier duct wrap will be installed on the exterior portion of the exhaust duct to the duct termination above the roof.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
6.2.2.6. Commercial Cooking Equipment
(1) Except as provided in Article 3.6.3.5., all commercial cooking equipment shall be provided with ventilation systems designed, constructed and installed to conform to NFPA 96, “Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations”.
NFPA 96 - Subsection 7.8.2. Rooftop Terminations
7.8.2.1 Rooftop terminations shall be arranged with or provided with the following:
(1) A minimum of 3 m (10 ft) of horizontal clearance from the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, and air intakes.
(2) A minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft) of horizontal clearance from the outlet (fan housing) to any combustible structure
(3) A vertical separation of 0.92 m (3 ft) below any exhaust outlets for air intakes within 3 m (10 ft) of the exhaust outlet
(4) The ability to drain grease out of any traps or low points formed in the fan or duct near the termination of the system into a collection container that is noncombustible, closed, rainproof, and structurally sound for the service to which it is applied and that will not sustain combustion
(5) A grease collection device that is applied to exhaust systems that does not inhibit the performance of any fan
(6) Listed grease collection systems that meet the requirements of 7.8.2.1(4) and 7.8.2.1(5)
(7) A listed grease duct complying with Section 4.4 or ductwork complying with Section 4.5
(8) A hinged upblast fan supplied with flexible weatherproof electrical cable and service hold-open retainer to permit inspection and cleaning that is listed for commercial cooking equipment with the following conditions:
(a) Where the fan attaches to the ductwork, the ductwork is a minimum of 0.46 m (18 in.) away from any roof surface, as shown in Figure 7.8.2.1.
(b) The fan discharges a minimum of 1.02 m (40 in.) away from any roof surface, as shown in Figure 7.8.2.1.
(9) Other approved fan, provided it meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The fan meets the requirements of 7.8.2.1(3) and 8.1.4.
(b) Its discharge or its extended duct discharge meets the requirements of 7.8.2.1(2). (See 8.1.4.)
(c) Exhaust fan discharge is directed up and away from the roof surface.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant has applied for a building permit with the Norfolk County’s building department to renovate the ground floor of an existing building. As part of the permit application, a rooftop exhaust is being provided to serve the exhaust hood for an electric pizza oven.
On September 11, 2023, the Respondent advised the Applicant that the permit application was refused based on non-compliance with Sentence 7.8.2.1(1) of NFPA 96, referenced under Sentence 6.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. As per the permit application review comments, the property has 5.33 m (17.5 ft) frontage based on legal description, and the installation of an NFPA exhaust system is not permitted on this property because the rooftop termination did not have a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) of horizontal clearance from the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, and air intakes.
The Applicant submitted the building is on the property line. The building width frontage is only 5.33 m (17.5 ft) on Alice Street. The Applicant testified that to place an exhaust duct, the duct will never be able to achieve 3 m (10 ft) from each side of property line. The exhaust duct is 2,57 m (8.5 ft) away from rooftop termination to both property lines. The exhaust duct discharges well above anything at 1.02 m (40 in.) as per NFPA 96 requirements.
The Applicant indicated that the intent of the Building Code is to prevent the spread of fire to neighbouring buildings, as well as smell. The Applicant submitted that the exhaust hood is in the centre of the ground floor and the exhaust duct comes out of the hood and travels to the rear of the building. In the final proposed design, the duct runs below a combustible floor assembly above the pizza shop within the commercial space and travels to the rear side of the building. The combustible floor assembly has been upgraded to a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min. The rear elevation shows the duct going vertically to the roof along the back side of the building.
The Applicant submitted that the pizza shop is not a big restaurant, and the shop has an electric oven. There is no deep-frying equipment in the pizza shop. Where the exhaust duct is outside of building, a clearance of not less than 0.46 m (18 in) will be maintained to combustible material.
The Applicant submitted that the intent of the Building Code is to eliminate heating up surrounding combustible materials (real and immediate hazard). NFPA 96 permits an alternative to reduce the clearance from 0.46 m (18 in.) to 7.6 cm (3 in.) when the exhaust duct and its elements are wrapped with listed material such as 3M fire barrier duct wrap.
The Applicant described the installation of a listed fire damper which will shut the duct at the collar of the hood, hence eliminating the risk of fire travelling up the duct and moving to another property.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent stated that the Norfolk County did a plan review of the initial permit application (Submission 1) on September 11, 2023. There were two issues to be addressed. One issue was the fire separation between the first and second floor. The second issue was the rooftop termination of the exhaust duct, which does not comply with NFPA 96, Subsection 7.8.2. Rooftop Terminations. The Respondent noticed that the property lines are flush with the sides of building. Legal description states that the building has 5.33 m (17.5 ft) frontage.
The Respondent submitted that based on a review of Article 6.2.2.6. and of the referenced standard NFPA 96, the rooftop termination did not meet the clearance requirement. The installation of a NFPA rooftop termination was within 3 m of a property line or neighbouring building.
The Respondent stated that the Applicant provided engineering drawings for an alteration to an existing fire separation of the floor assembly and for installation of a NFPA 96 rated exhaust hood, ducts and rooftop fan on September 25, 2023 (documents identified as Submission 2 and 3). The exhaust duct has been relocated to the rear of the building. However, the Respondent could not determine where and how high the duct would terminate above the roof.
The Respondent further stated that Submissions 2 and 3 had the duct and rooftop termination on the rear of the building without meeting the requirements of NFPA 96, Article 7.8.2.1.
The Respondent stated that the Applicant also proposed a ULC listed filtration system to address any potential issue of odour. The Respondent did not provide comment and stated he would evaluate the testing results of the filtration system should it be provided.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed rooftop terminations for exhaust hood, ducts, and fan for a pizza restaurant, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 6.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, at 18 Alice Street, Waterford, Ontario on condition that:
a) A listed and labelled fire damper is installed as shown on the engineering drawing M2 titled “HVAC & Clearance” marked as “updated January 30” and submitted on January 31, 2024 by the Applicant for the use that it is intended.
Reasons
i) The property is constrained to a maximum of 5.33 m (17.5 ft) in width. The Applicant proposed to locate the center line of the exhaust duct to be approximately 2.57 m (8.5 feet) from the closest adjacent property line.
ii) The Applicant has offered to provide the following compensating measures: installation of a listed fire damper at the collar of the exhaust duct above the hood; provision of 3M fire barrier duct wrap on the exterior portion of the duct; and locating the termination of exhaust duct at a height of 1,53 m (6 feet) above the roofline, which equates to a height of approximately 1.22 m (4 feet) above the roofs of the adjacent buildings.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 2nd day in the month of February in the year 2024 for application number B-2023-18.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Leszek Muniak
Alexandra Chow