Ruling No. 03-31-929 Application No. 2003-38 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 3.1.13.7.(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 Steve Trach, Alterra / Barnett, for the resolution of a dispute with George Kotsifas, Acting Chief Building Official, City of Burlington, to determine whether the as-installed combustible plumbing fixtures in a Group C occupancy, which have a Smoke Developed Classification of 375, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at 2085 Amherst Heights Boulevard, Burlington, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Steve Trach Alterra / Barnett Toronto, Ontario George Kotsifas Acting Chief Building Official City of Burlington Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING August 7, 2003 DATE OF RULING September 9, 2003 APPEARANCES Steve Trach Alterra / Barnett Toronto, Ontario The Applicant Terry Hewitson Supervisor of Inspections City of Burlington Agent for the Respondent
-2- RULING 1. The Applicant Steve Trach, Alterra / Barnett, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies with respect to the construction of a Group C occupancy located at 2085 Amherst Heights Boulevard, Burlington, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a high-rise Group C occupancy building. The structure is seven stories in building height and approximately 2,492 m 2 in building area. In addition to the seven above-grade storeys, the facility includes an underground single storey parking garage. The building is comprised of non-combustible construction and is equipped with a standpipe and hose and fire alarm system. Only the underground parking garage has been equipped with a sprinkler system. The structure in dispute is considered to be a high building under the Ontario Building Code (OBC), since its floor level is more than 18 m above grade. In fact, the building in question exceeds the height threshold outlined in Subsection 3.2.6. of the OBC by 0.6 metres. Accordingly, as a high building, the construction requirements as per the provisions outlined in Subsection 3.2.6. of the Code are also applicable. The issue at dispute involves the as-installed combustible plumbing fixtures, which have a smoke developed classification that exceeds the value permitted in Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the Code. As mentioned above, the building at dispute must comply with the flame spread ratings and smoke developed classification values outlined in Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the OBC since it is classified as a high building. In comparison with the smoke developed classification value of 300 outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code, the as-installed combustible plumbing fixtures, which have a smoke developed classification of 375, are in excess by a value of 75. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-installed combustible plumbing fixtures in a high-rise Group C occupancy, which have a smoke developed classification of 375, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the Ontario Building Code. It should be noted that Article 3.1.5.16. of the OBC permits the use of combustible plumbing fixtures, including wall and ceiling enclosures that form part of the pluming fixtures, in buildings required to be of non-combustible construction provided they are constructed of material having a flame-spread rating and smoke developed classification not more than that permitted for the wall surface of the room or space in which they are installed. Article 3.2.6.1. of the OBC considers residential buildings which have a storey that is more than 18 m above grade to be high buildings. In high buildings, the interior walls and ceiling finishes are further regulated by Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) which states that the interior wall, ceiling, and floor finishes in a building regulated by the provisions of Subsection 3.2.6., shall conform to the flame-spread ratings and smoke developed classification values outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code. From Table 3.1.13.7., a maximum smoke developed classification of 300 for walls and 50 for ceilings is set for bathrooms.
-3- Despite this, Sentence 3.1.13.7.(2) permits the smoke developed classification for walls and ceilings to exceed the maximum values specified in Table 3.1.13.7. when the building does not contain a Group B major occupancy and is provided with a sprinkler system that is electronically supervised in conformance with the provisions outlined in Sentence 3.2.6.4.(1) of the Code. Since the building at dispute contains a Group C occupancy, and is not provided with sprinkler protection, the maximum smoke developed classification values outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code are applicable to the matter at hand. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code 3.1.13.7. High Buildings (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) and (3), the interior wall, ceiling and floor finishes in a building regulated by the provisions of Subsection 3.2.6. shall conform to the flame-spread rating requirements in Articles 3.1.13.2. to 3.1.13.6. and to the flame-spread rating and smoke developed classification values in Table 3.1.13.7. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by offering a brief description of the construction at dispute, which is an upscale condominium project that consists of two seven-storey towers constructed on a singlestorey joined parking garage. The Agent added that the issue at dispute, which pertains to the asinstalled combustible plumbing fixtures, only applies to one of the subject buildings located on the property, since only one of the towers is considered a high building as defined in Article 3.2.6.1. of the Code. The Agent submitted that the combustible plumbing fixtures in dispute are the as-installed acrylic soaker tubs and shower basins that are featured in the residential suites. The Agent continued by stating that the Applicant did not know that the combustible plumbing fixtures were a problem until after they had been installed. The Agent added that it was the Designate for the Respondent who discovered that the plumbing fixtures in question have a smoke developed classification that exceeds the value outlined in Article 3.1.13.7. of the OBC. The Agent submitted that following this discovery, the Applicant searched the market to find a soaker tub and shower basin that would comply with the Code s maximum smoke developed classification value of 300. After having completed their search, the Applicant came to realize that there is no product on the market, except for metal fixtures, that meet the maximum smoke developed classification value of 300. The Agent added that the Applicant party was extremely surprised when they learnt that the plumbing fixtures in question were not in compliance with the Code, because these very fixtures have been, and are currently being, installed in almost every residential condominium building constructed in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). As a result, the Agent submitted that the outcome of this hearing before the Building Code Commission will have widespread implications, even though he acknowledged that the decision of the Commission is site specific. The Agent added that the Applicant does not consider the acrylic tubs and shower basins in question to pose a huge threat with respect to combustibility, because the tubs are protected by a ceramic tile tub skirt that consists of ceramic tiles bonded to a 12.7mm (½") cement board. It is the Applicant s position that this ceramic tub skirt will prevent any fire, occurring outside of the tub, from contacting the soaker tub and thereby resulting in its ignition. Furthermore, the Agent noted that each residential suite is equipped with a fire alarm system that is located within reasonable distance to the bathroom; thereby, enhancing fire protection.
-4- The Agent continued by stating that the Applicant had even tried to alter the grading so that the height of the building would not exceed the 18 m high building height threshold; however, the parties could not reach an agreement on this proposal and thus, the notion was abandoned. According to the Agent, the only measures that could be taken to ensure compliance would be to provide sprinkler protection in the building, which would be cost prohibitive, or retrofitting the as-built bathrooms with metal fixtures, which are difficult to install in condominium projects. When asked whether the Applicant would consider installing sprinkler heads only above the soaker tubs and shower basins at dispute, the Agent maintained that anything was possible, but that he felt that this would be extremely intrusive to occupants. The Agent added that the combustible plumbing fixtures should be accepted on the basis that the building only marginally exceeds the height threshold that classifies it as a high building and the smoke developed classification value of the combustible plumbing fixtures only marginally exceeds the value outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code. In summary, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that there are no combustible plumbing fixtures on the market which comply with the smoke developed classification values outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code, except for metal fixtures that are both expensive and impractical. The Agent added that he believes that the Applicant has done everything to achieve compliance with the Code, short of retrofitting in metal fixtures. 6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the building permit for the structure at dispute was issued on November 30 th, 1999 and that construction was completed in 2002. At that time occupancy was permitted in the building despite the fact that the soaker tubs and shower basins were listed as a deficiency. The Respondent stated the flame spread rating of the as-installed soaker tubs and shower basins complies with Code requirements and that it is only the smoke developed classification value that is an issue. The Respondent submitted that the acrylic soaker tubs and shower basins in question do not have a smoke developed classification value that is less than or equal to the requirements of Article 3.1.13.7. of the Code and, as such, are clearly in contravention with the provisions of the OBC. The Respondent continued by stating that he is aware that the building in question only marginally exceeds the 18 m high building height threshold and that he had advised the Applicant to alter the grading by approximately 0.762 m (2.5 ft.) so that the building might be exempted from the high building requirements found in Subsection 3.2.6. of the Code. The Respondent added that he had also suggested as an alternative that sprinkler protection be provided throughout the entire building, which would, in turn, relieve the Applicant party from the issue at dispute. He continued by stating that, to date, the Applicant party has not acted on this suggestion. The Respondent maintained that he is cognizant of the fact that the combustible plumbing fixtures at dispute have been, and are presently being, installed in many condominium projects across the City of Toronto and the wider GTA. Despite this, the Respondent argued, that it is the mandate of the City of Burlington s Building Department to ensure that the provisions of the OBC are enforced. As such, the Respondent stated that the Code does permit the use of combustible plumbing fixtures in high buildings as long as the fixtures in question comply with the flame-spread rating and smoke developed classification values outlined in Table 3.1.13.7. of the Code. The Respondent noted, however, that the combustible plumbing fixtures at dispute are clearly in contravention with the Code as the smoke developed classification value exceeds 300. The Respondent submitted that he believes that the City of Burlington does not have the authority to permit this deviation from the technical requirements of the OBC, which explains why this issue was brought before the Building Code Commission.
-5- In summary, the Respondent maintained that the combustible plumbing fixtures in questions are clearly in contravention with the provisions of the OBC. The Respondent party also submitted that the City of Burlington is not a position to permit this deviation from the technical requirements of the Code. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-installed combustible plumbing fixtures in a high-rise Group C occupancy, which have a smoke developed classification of 375, do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at 2085 Amherst Heights Boulevard, Burlington, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) The subject building is considered a high rise as per Subsection 3.2.6. of the Code and, consequently, Table 3.1.13.7. applies. ii) No compensating measures were offered by the Applicant party with respect to: a) The height of the building, which exceeds the height threshold of Sentence 3.2.6.1 of the Ontario Building Code. b) The Smoke Developed Classification requirements of Sentence 3.1.13.7.(1) of the Ontario Building Code.
-6- Dated at Toronto this 9th day in the month of September in the year 2003 for application number 2003-38. Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse John Guthrie