BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No 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 (1) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Chris Klemt, Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated, for the resolution of a dispute with Steve Franklin, Deputy Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed hold-open devices on certain exit doors of a Group B Division 2 occupancy, which is more than three storeys in building height, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Ontario Building Code at 350 Rumsey Road, Toronto, Ontario APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Chris Klemt Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated, Steve Franklin Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie DATE OF HEARING August 7, 2003 DATE OF RULING August 7, 2003 APPEARANCES James Ware Larden Muniak Consulting Agent for the Applicant Peter Lee Building Inspector City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Chris Klemt, Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing the Bloorview MacMillan Children s Centre at 350 Rumsey Road, 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a Group B, Division 2 care and treatment facility known as the Bloorview MacMillan Children s Centre. The proposed structure has a building area of 6,887 m 2 and will be 5 storeys in building height. The building will be comprised of noncombustible construction and will be equipped with sprinkler, fire alarm and standpipe and hose systems. Two of the exit stairs in the subject building, identified as ST1 and ST2 for the floor above the exit level, do not exit directly to the exterior of the building. Rather, stair ST1 exits through Corridor 1W013 and stair ST2 exits through Lobby 1E010. The construction in dispute involves a total of three sets of double doors situated along the exit routes from these stairs, on Level 1 of the building. The item in dispute in this regard involves the inclusion of hold-open devices on the subject doors. To facilitate occupant circulation and egress along the corridors and Lobby 1E010 on Level 1, hold-open devices are proposed for three sets of doors located between the corridors and lobby. These hold-open devices will be connected to the building fire alarm system and smoke detectors which will be positioned in accordance with Appendix B of Standard for Fire Doors and Fire Windows. The devices will be designed to be released upon activation of the fire alarm or smoke detectors. In addition, smoke detectors will be linked to the fire alarm system as well as to the hold-open devices. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed hold-open devices on the subject exit doors in a Group B Division 2 occupancy that is more than three storeys in building height, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). This Sentence of the Code stipulates that hold-open devices are permitted on doors in a required fire separation with the exception of exit doors in a building that is more than 3 storeys in building height. As noted above, the doors that are proposed to be equipped with hold-open devices are considered exit doors and form part of a fire separation. Further, the subject building is more than 3 storeys in building height. In respect to the installation of hold-open devices, it should be noted that the Code requires their release upon activation of the building fire alarm system. There is no requirement for the release of hold-open devices to also be released by activation of smoke detectors located as described in Appendix B of NFPA 80, as is proposed in the subject application.

3 -3-4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Hold-Open Devices (1) A hold-open device is permitted on a door in a required fire separation, other than an exit door in a building more than 3 storeys in building height, and on a door for a vestibule required by Article , provided the device is designed to release the door in conformance with Sentences (2) to (7). 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant provided an overview of the building and the proposed function of the occupancy. He identified the doors subject to this dispute and suggested that if the doors were constantly closed occupants may wedge the doors open to facilitate egress through the facility. This would defeat the purpose of the fire separation as the doors would not automatically be closed upon activation of the alarm system. The Agent suggested that, by installing hold-open devices the life safety of the building occupants would not be compromised and may well be increased. The Agent outlined the Applicant s proposal to link the hold-open devices to both the fire alarm system and smoke detectors located in accordance with NFPA He further noted the high level of supervision offered to the children occupying this facility and advised that there was a fire safety plan in place. In summation, the Agent submitted that fire safety, evacuation and smoke movement have all been considered in the development of this proposal. 6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the Code does not permit hold-open devices on exit doors located in a building more than three storey in height. He noted that the three sets of doors subject to this dispute are located in the exits and the building is five stories in height. He suggested that, in an emergency, the children occupying this building may not be as responsive as adults might be and, therefore, every safety precaution should be applied. In his opinion, the inclusion of hold-open devices on these doors is for convenience only and would be in contravention of the Code. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the installation of hold-open devices on certain exit doors of a Group B, Division 2 occupancy, which is more than three storeys in building height, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Ontario Building Code at 350 Rumsey Road,. 8. Reasons i) Door ST1-1 of exit Stair ST1 and Door ST2-1 of Stair ST2 have the effect of retarding the passage of smoke into the respective stair shafts from fire on Level 01. ii) The Applicant has opted to have the hold-open devices released by both smoke detectors and the building fire alarm system, thus meeting the requirements of both Sentences (3) and (4) of the Code, notwithstanding that Sentence (4) is an exception to Sentence

4 (3) in that it requires that hold-open devices only be released by the fire alarm system. Hold-open devices are only required to be released by a smoke detector located as described in Appendix B of NFPA 80. iii) iv) By connecting the hold-open devices on double egress Doors 1W011 to smoke detectors, the doors will close when smoke is detected in the vicinity, thus helping to retard the passage of smoke into Corridor 1W013 and exit Stair ST1. Similar arrangement for the hold-open devices on double egress Doors 1E009 will help to retard the passage of smoke into the exit lobby and stair ST2. The level of protection is further increased as smoke detectors for the release of the hold-open devices are provided on each side of the double egress doors that are to be held open.

5 -5- Dated at Toronto this 7th day in the month of August in the year 2003 for application number Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie