Ruling No.: 24-19-1653
Application No.: B-2024-12
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
AND ITHE MATTER OF Clauses 9.8.4.5.(1)(a) and Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Kevin Bibby for the resolution of a dispute with Andy McMahon, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the as constructed secondary stair serving a two-storey residential dwelling from the main floor to the second floor bedroom area, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.8.4.5.(1)(a) and Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2) of the Ontario Building Code at 10 Paris Road, Brantford, Ontario.
APPLICANT Kevin Bibby
Homeowner/Builder
Brantford, Ontario
RESPONDENT Andy McMahon
Chief Building Official
Brantford, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
James Eduful
Michael Gooch
PLACE via Teams Video Conference
DATE OF HEARING October 8, 2024
DATE OF RULINING October 8, 2024
APPEARANCES Kevin Bibby
Owner/Builder
Brantford, Ontario
The Applicant
Andy McMahon
Chief Building Official
Brantford, Ontario
Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a two-story addition to an existing one and half storey residential dwelling at 10 Paris Road, Brantford, Ontario.
The subject building was a one and half storey building that was converted to a two-storey building. The as-constructed residential dwelling is a two-storey building of combustible construction having a building area of approximately 446 m2 (4,800 square feet). A secondary stair has been constructed from the main floor to second floor to serve the second floor bedroom area.
The construction in dispute between the parties centers on whether the configuration of the as-constructed secondary stair serving the second floor bedroom area, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.8.4.5.(1)(a) and Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.8.4.5. Winders (See Appendix A.)
(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°, …
(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.
Appendix Note A-9.8.4.5. Winders.
The safest method of incorporating a change in the direction of a stair is to use a landing. Within a dwelling unit, however, where 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 run of 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 in the natural gait of the stair user; 45° winders are also acceptable, as they are wider. The Code permits winders to turn through any 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 the construction of the two-storey addition included removing the half story of the existing one and half storey house and adding a full second story in its place. The Applicant advised that the second-floor joists of the original half story were left in place and new floor joists installed over them to match the height of the new second floor addition floor.
The Applicant explained that as a firefighter he wished to have a secondary stair to serve the bedroom area to improve fire safety. The Applicant admitted that the configuration of the secondary stair was a result of a miscalculation related to the height between floors. The resulting stair opening did not allow for the original stair design therefore, an alternative configuration was constructed.
The Applicant explained that the stairs begin at the bottom with one standard step that leads to a winder of 90 degrees to the right. This is followed by two consecutive rectangular treads that lead to winders that turn 180 degrees to face left to ascend the remaining six rectangular treads leading to the upstairs hallway.
The Applicant submitted that the stair has been in use for approximately five years and there have been no issues from the children and older adults who use the stair. The Applicant also indicated that he believes that spiral stairs would have been acceptable in this location.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent indicated that staff inspected the framing in July of 2019 and noted the noncompliance with the Building Code provisions.
The building inspector advised the owner of the noncompliance, and the owner indicated that he would apply to the Building Code Commission to determine sufficiency of compliance. Subsequently, an Order to Comply was issued to the owner in July of 2019.
The Respondent submitted that upon inspection it was noted that the winders significantly exceed the 90 degree angle required by the Building Code, as it is 180 degrees.
The Respondent also stated that the stair, as constructed, does not meet the Ontario Building Code requirements set out in Article 9.8.4.5. of the Building Code and as such, was not accepted by the Brantford Building Department.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed secondary stair serving a two-storey residential dwelling from the main floor to the second-floor bedroom area, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.8.4.5.(1)(a) and Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2) of the Building Code at 10 Paris Road, Brantford, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The stair construction does not meet Clause 9.8.4.5.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code as it has more than three winders in one stair turning more than 90 degrees. The Commission heard that the winders exceed the 90 degree angle significantly; it is 180 degrees.
ii) The Commission heard that there is no separation of the winders, and they change direction at the same location. Therefore, the configuration does not meet Sentence 9.8.4.5.(2) of Division B of the Building Code that requires a minimum of 1.2 m distance between 2 sets of winders.
iii) It is the opinion of the Commission that the as-constructed stair far exceeds the prescriptive requirements of the Building Code and creates a hazardous condition where a person falling at the winders is highly possible.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 8th day in the month of October in the year 2024 for application number B-2024-012.
Stephen Wong, Chair
James Eduful
Michael Gooch