|
|
|
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.2.9.1.(1) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99 and 205/00 (the “Ontario Building Code”). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Gary Leblanc, 340268 Ontario Limited, Kitchener, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Bruce Poole, Chief Building Official, City of Guelph, Ontario, to determine whether the various proposed compensating construction measures, offered in lieu of a standpipe and hose system, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.9.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at Patene Building Supplies, 641 Speedvale Avenue West, Guelph, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE
DATE OF
HEARING DATE OF
RULING APPEARANCES
RULING 1. The Applicant ?Mr. Gary Leblanc, 340268
Ontario Limited, Kitchener, Ontario, has received a building permit under
the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a wholesale warehouse
known as Patene Building Supplies, 641 Speedvale Avenue West, Guelph,
Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The
Applicant has constructed a building to serve as a wholesale warehouse for
construction materials. The building consists of two main parts, a one
storey warehouse portion which covers an area of 2119 m2 and a two storey
administrative and sales portion with a building area of 558 m2. The
building is described as having a Group F, Division 3 - Low Hazard
Industrial major occupancy as well as a Group D - Business and Personal
Services occupancy, which is subsidiary to the warehouse. The entire
building is 2677 m2 in building area, two storeys in building height, and
of noncombustible construction. The structure is equipped with a fire
detection system, but not a sprinkler system nor a standpipe and hose
system. The
subject building is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of 36.5 m by
73 m with its length constructed along the western property line. The
property is also rectangular with dimensions of 114 by 242 m. The building
is situated in the south-west corner of the property and is set back 4.4 m
and 23.5 m from the west and south property lines respectively. There is a
1060 m2 drive through canopy attached to the warehouse portion of the
building’s eastern exposing face. A parking lot adjacent to the street
occupies the entire southern end of the property. The remainder of the
site, to the north of the building and east of the canopy, is a material
storage yard. The property is considered to face two streets and there are
two fire hydrants near the property, one is located 6.4 m to the west of
the building (on the adjacent property) and the other is 26 m from the
front of the building (on its south side). The
structure is served by a total of six exit doors, with at least one on
each exposing building face. As well, there are four large shipping doors,
three on the east side and one on the north. There are 19 fire
extinguishers located within the facility, four of which are on the
exterior side of the building’s east wall. The fire detection system
includes thirty-four monitored detectors installed throughout the
building, 31 of which are in the two floors of the office area and 3 are
in the warehouse. It is ULC approved, provides zone indication and is
centrally monitored with notification at the fire department. The occupant
load of the building is 16, according to the
Applicant. The
construction in dispute involves the omission of the standpipe and hose
system. At 2677 m2, the subject building is required to be fitted with
such a system. The Applicant describes the wall assembly separating the
warehouse and office areas as being firestopped with a minimum fire
resistance rating of 1.5 hours and equipped with doors with closing
devices. (Between such occupancies, the OBC does not require a fire
separation. Nevertheless, it is not considered a firewall that would
create two smaller buildings for Code purposes.) This wall also has
several wired glass window openings between the shipping office on the
ground floor, the lunchroom on the second floor and the warehouse. It also
has three doors to allow access between the two
areas. 3. Dispute The
issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the
various compensating construction measures, offered in lieu of a standpipe
and hose system, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence
3.2.9.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code. This provision requires that
every building (with a few exceptions that are not applicable here), which
is more than three storeys in building height, 14 m in height (measured
between grade and the ceiling of the top storey), or of a certain building
area if the building is unsprinklered, to be equipped with a standpipe
system. If the final situation is applicable, the building area thresholds
are set out in Table 3.2.9.1.
Table 3.2.9.1.
According
to this Table, an F3 building two storeys in building height may have a
maximum area of 2000 m2 or less in order to be exempted from the
requirement to install a standpipe and hose system. The subject building
is considered two storeys in building height and has an area of 2675 m2.
As noted, however, the Applicant is offering certain compensating measures
in lieu of providing the standpipe system. At issue then, is whether
subject measures are adequate to achieve the same level of safety offered
by a standpipe system and thereby provide sufficiency of compliance with
Sentence 3.2.9.1.(1). 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Article 3.2.9.1.
Standpipe Systems - Where Required
5. Applicant's Position The
Applicant submitted that the five principle measures they are offering in
lieu of the required standpipe system provide adequate compensation to
meet the fire safety standards intended under Article 3.2.9.1. These
compensatory measures are:
The
Applicant noted that no separation is required under the Code between the
warehouse and the office building, and as a result he argued that the
as-built 1.5 hour wall can be considered as a significant compensating
measure. The
Applicant then noted that the fire detection system, with a total of 34
monitored detectors, will provide a comprehensive and interconnected level
of fire detection throughout the building. The as-installed fire detection
system, he argued, also provides a higher level of early warning than is
required by Code for such a building. As well, the 19 fire extinguishers
that are strategically placed around the structure will provide a good
level of protection in the early stages of a fire emergency. Moreover, the
staff have been trained by the fire department in terms of the use of the
extinguishers, he added. Regarding
the proximity to the fire department, the Applicant stated that the
building is located only 4 km from the nearest municipal fire station
which means that their response time to his facility is less than five
minutes. As far as the proximity of hydrants is concerned, he noted that
there are two hydrants, one to the west and one to the front, of the
building at an approximate distance of 6.4 m and 29 m respectively. As a
result, the building is well served by hydrants. The
Applicant also indicated that because the building is of entirely
noncombustible construction and is used as a wholesale facility for mainly
noncombustible building materials, such as drywall and masonry, the fire
load of the building and its contents is extremely low. He noted that
materials such as roofing products are stored
outside. The
Applicant concluded that the compensating measures provided, combined with
the low occupant load of 16, is sufficient to achieve the same level of
safety offered by a standpipe and hose system. 6. Respondent's Position The
Respondent submitted that the building area of the Patene Building
Supplies facility is in excess of the area specified in Table 3.2.9.1 by
33%. As a result, he stated that the building is required to be equipped
with a standpipe and hose system. The
Respondent argued that no relief from the standpipe system can be obtain
as a result of the 1.5 hour fire rated wall separating the office and
warehouse areas. This wall, he noted, is not a firewall that would serve
to divide the building into two separate ones. Moreover, the subject fire
separation has been breached by several penetrations. As well, the Code
does not offer specific allowances providing relief from a standpipe
system with the provision of such compartmentalization, he
added. The
Respondent indicated that while the fire detection could be construed as
above minimum Code requirements, it is not a full fledged system that
would provide a substantial compensating measure. For example, the fire
detection system does not have pull stations. The
Respondent stated that to his knowledge the hydrant to the west of the
building is a private one on the adjacent property, thus making it
uncertain whether it can be used for the building under dispute, if
necessary. Besides, even if the hydrant can be used for the Applicant’s
property, there are few openings in the west wall of the building to offer
a decent level of accessibility into the structure. Finally,
the Respondent argued that while the building is currently used as a
facility that stores and supplies mainly noncombustible building material,
the situation may not remain that way. The Applicant, or a future
purchaser, may decide at a later date to supply combustible materials
instead. When, or if, this occurs the building department would have no
control or input to require a standpipe system at that time, the
Respondent said. In
conclusion, the Respondent acknowledged that certain levels of
compensation were being offered, however, he indicated that, in his view,
they were not sufficient to offset the need for the required standpipe
system. 7. Commission Ruling It
is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the various proposed
compensating construction measures, offered in lieu of a standpipe and
hose system, do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence
3.2.9.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at Patene Building Supplies, 641
Speedvale Avenue West, Guelph, Ontario. 8. Reasons
Dated at Toronto this
13th, day in the month of April
in the year 2000 for application number
2000-16. _______________________________________________ Mr.
Kenneth Peaker, Chair-Designate _______________________________________________ Mr. John Guthrie _______________________________________________ | |||||||||||||||
Mr. Donald
Pratt
Back to the Year 2000 BCC Rulings
Back to the OBC Home Page
E-mail comments/questions to: OBC Advisory Service
© Copyright 2000 Queen's Printer for
Ontario.
This information is provided as a
public service, but we cannot guarantee that the information is current or
accurate. Readers should verify the information before acting on it.
