Ruling No.: 24-05-1639
Application No.: B-2023-23
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 Clauses 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) and (c) of Division B of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Cole Ingoldsby, for the resolution of a dispute with Phillip Lappan, Chief Building Official, City of Quinte West, to determine whether the proposal not to provide barrier-free access to the rooftop of a new one storey, Group E occupancy building, which houses mechanical equipment and provides access to an aerial high ropes course, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) and (c) of Division B of the Building Code at 6 Douglas Rd, Quinte West, Ontario.
APPLICANT Cole Ingoldsby TaskForce Engineering Inc. Belleville, Ontario
RESPONDENT Phillip Lappan Chief Building Official Municipality of Quinte West Trenton, Ontario
PANEL Matthew Graham, Chair Designate Leszek Muniak Alexandra Chow
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING March 19, 2024
DATE OF RULING March 30, 2024
APPEARANCES Cole Ingoldsby TaskForce Engineering Inc. Belleville, Ontario Applicant
Hillary Murphy TaskForce Engineering Inc. Belleville, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
William Sikkema, C. Tech., CBCO Deputy Chief Building Official Municipality of Quinte West Trenton, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has submitted a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct an aerial high ropes course on the rooftop of a new Beaver Tail restaurant building located at 6 Douglas Rd, Quinte West, Ontario.
The subject building is one storey having a building area of 186 m2, comprised of combustible construction with a Group E, major occupancy for a restaurant. The building is located within an area being developed as an amusement park. The construction in dispute concerns the rooftop access via an exterior stair, where an aerial high ropes course will be offered.
The dispute between the two parties’ centres on whether the proposal not to provide barrier-free access to the rooftop of the one storey, Group E occupancy building, which houses mechanical equipment and provides access to an aerial high ropes course, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) and (c) of Division B of the Building Code.
After the hearing held on March 19, 2024, concluded, the parties were asked to submit additional information. The additional information submitted by the Applicant indicated that patrons are required to sign a waiver form and to undergo assessment and training prior to participating in the aerial high ropes course.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
3.8.2.1. Areas Requiring Barrier-Free Path of Travel
(1) Except as permitted by Sentence (3), a barrier-free path of travel from the entrances required by Sentences 3.8.1.2.(1) and (3) to be barrier-free shall be provided,
(a) throughout the entrance storey,
(b) except as permitted by Sentence (2), to and throughout all normally occupied floor areas and rooftop amenity spaces, and (See Appendix A.)
(c) throughout all normally occupied floor areas and rooftop amenity spaces that, (See Appendix A.)
(i) are exempt from the application of Clause (b), and
(ii) are served by a passenger elevator, escalator, inclined moving walk, or other platform equipped passenger elevating device.
(See Appendix A.)
(2) A barrier-free path of travel described in Clause (1)(b) is not required to extend,
(a) to floor areas or portions of floor areas containing a Group B, Division 2 or 3 occupancy that are not required by Article 3.5.2.1. to be connected by a ramp or served by an elevator,
(b) to Group C or Group D occupancies that are in floor areas in a building that,
(i) is three or fewer storeys in building height, and
(ii) has a building area not exceeding 600 m2
(See Appendix A.)
(c) to Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancies that are not required by Sentence 3.8.2.2.(1) to be served by an elevator,
(d) to portions of restaurants and licensed beverage establishments where the same amenities and uses are provided on other floor areas that have a barrier-free path of travel, or
(e) to portions of child care facilities that have all entrance doors at floor levels that do not have a barrier-free path of travel.
(See Appendix A.)
(3) A barrier-free path of travel described in Sentence (1) is not required to extend,
(a) into service rooms,
(b) into elevator machine rooms,
(c) into janitors’ rooms,
(d) into service spaces,
(e) into crawl spaces,
(f) into attic or roof spaces,
(g) into high hazard industrial occupancies,
(h) to portions of a floor area with fixed seats in an assembly occupancy where these portions are not part of the barrier-free path of travel to,
(i) spaces designated for wheelchair use,
(ii) seats designated for adaptable seating, or
(iii) spaces for the storage of wheelchairs and mobility assistive devices,
(i) to suites of residential occupancy that are in storeys other than the entrance storey and that have all entrance doors at floor levels that are not required to have a barrier-free path of travel,
(j) except as required by Sentence (5), on the inside of a suite of residential occupancy, or
(k) to portions of a floor area that are not at the same level as the entry level, provided amenities and uses provided on any raised or sunken level are accessible on the entry level by means of a barrier-free path of travel.
(See Appendix A.)
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant has submitted a building permit application for a proposal to use the building’s exterior stair to access an aerial high ropes course from the rooftop of the Beaver Tail restaurant. On December 18, 2023, the Respondent advised the Applicant that the permit application was refused. The Respondent also advised the Applicant that one of the deficiencies noted was that no provisions had been made to extend the barrier-free design to the rooftop occupancy.
Th Applicant stated that the aerial high ropes course will be constructed in accordance with Standard EN-15567 “Sports and recreational facilities - Ropes courses.” The aerial high ropes course is not considered an amusement device and therefore O. Reg. 221/01: Amusement Devices under Technical Standards and Safety Act is not applicable.
The Applicant stated that the rooftop is not designed as an amenity space for building occupants. The sole purpose of the exterior stairs is to provide access to the first platform of the aerial ropes course and for the purposes of mechanical equipment maintenance. Therefore, the existing exterior stair is not designed to be barrier-free accessible.
The Applicant indicated that only people who have bought a ticket, taken an assessment, obtained training, and completed a waiver form confirming they are in good health and physically able to traverse suspended elements will be permitted access. Only one patron at a time is permitted access to the rooftop for the aerial high ropes course. Access to remainder of the rooftop space is restricted and off limits.
The Applicant is of the opinion that the rooftop is not an occupied space due to the infrequent and limited/restricted access to the rooftop and therefore, a barrier-free path of travel is not required to be extended to the rooftop space. As a result, the proposal not to provide barrier-free access to the rooftop provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.8.2.1(1)(b) and (c).
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent stated that the rooftop was previously designed as an unoccupied space prior to changing the use to a Group A, Division 4 occupancy amusement part structure. The exterior stairs to the roof were initially proposed for access to the rooftop mechanical units for maintenance access only.
The Respondent submitted that as per Clause 3.2.8.1.(1)(b) a barrier-free path of travel would be required to be provided to and throughout all normally occupied floor areas and rooftop amenity spaces.
The Respondent also submitted that exceptions are permitted in Sentence 3.8.2.1.(1); however, the exceptions identified in Sentence 3.8.2.1.(3) are not applicable to Group A, Division 4 occupancies.
It is the Respondent’s opinion that the objective and functional statements associated with the Building Code provisions for barrier-free path of travel are not restricted by the intended permission of a given activity. Restricted access to the roof to only patrons who have paid for the aerial high ropes course does not provide relief from the objectives of the Clauses 3.2.8.1.(b) and (c).
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal not to provide barrier-free access to the roof top of a one storey, Group E occupancy building, which houses mechanical equipment and provides access to an aerial high ropes course, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) and (c) of Division B of the Building Code at 6 Douglas Rd, Quinte West, Ontario.
Reasons
i) The intent of Sentence 3.8.2.1.(3) of Division B of the Building Code is to avoid access to a hazardous location.
The Commission heard that the high ropes course is operating separately from the Beaver Tails restaurant located below the rooftop and is not part of the occupancy of the building.
The Commission received evidence that patrons accessing the high ropes course will be required to complete a training and sign a waiver form prior to accessing the aerial course.
Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the aerial high ropes course is considered to be hazardous for those with mobility impairment.
Appendix note for Sentence 3.8.2.1.(3) indicates that Accessibility “within” a floor area is intended to mean that in general all normally occupied spaces are to be accessible, except where essential obstructions in the work area would make a barrier-free path of travel hazardous.
The Commission notes that the stair is a path of travel to a hazardous area and is of the opinion that those requiring a barrier-free path of travel will not be accessing the high ropes course.
ii) The Commission heard access to the high ropes course will be limited, supervised and controlled.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the rooftop is not an amenity space for the Beaver Tails restaurant below and would only be used by an attendant and one patron at a time to access the arial course.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 30th day in the month of March in the year 2024 for application number B-2023-23.
Matthew, Chair Designate
Leszek Muniak
Alexandra Chow