Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2015 > BCC Ruling No. 15-01-1390

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-01-1390

Email this page

 BCC Logo FR 

Ruling No.: 15-01-1390
Application No.: B 2014-27

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 Sentences 3.2.2.23.(2) and 3.2.2.57.(2) of Division B, of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Copperthwaite, Anchor Bar, for the resolution of a dispute with Ed VanderWindt, Chief Building Official, City of Hamilton, to determine whether, the proposal to provide rated closures along the side of the exterior patio that abuts existing building windows, applying a fire retardant solution to combustible elements and heavy timber components of the exterior patio and outlining a travel path along the exterior patio for access to exit from the existing building, provides sufficiency of compliance with the acceptable solutions prescribed in Sentences 3.2.2.23.(2) and 3.2.2.57.(2) of Division B, for an existing mixed use, Group A, Division 2, and Group E major occupancies building, at 2 King Street West, Hamilton (City of Hamilton), Ontario.

APPLICANT

David Copperthwaite
Owner, Anchor Bar
Hamilton, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Ed VanderWindt
Chief Building Official
City of Hamilton, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Alison Orr
Gerry Egberts

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

January 15, 2015

DATE OF RULING

January 15, 2015

APPEARANCES

David Copperthwaite
Owner, Anchor Bar
Applicant

Paul Kocsis
President, Kocsis Engineering Inc.
City of Hamilton, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

George Wong
Manager, Building Engineering and Zoning
City of Hamilton, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

Lisa Simmons
Inspector
City of Hamilton, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to provide rated closures along the side of the exterior patio that abuts existing building windows, applying a fire retardant solution to combustible elements and heavy timber components of the exterior patio and outlining a travel path along the exterior patio for access to exit from the existing building, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the acceptable solutions prescribed in Sentences 3.2.2.23.(2) and 3.2.2.57.(2) of Division B, for an existing mixed use, Group A, Division 2, and Group E major occupancies building, at 2 King Street West, Hamilton (City of Hamilton), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. The Commission heard that the subject building is a complex, which encompasses several multi-storey office towers, retail and live event venues that are interconnected by a podium with roof supported occupancies. The Commission also heard that the tallest tower is 13 storeys in building height and that this complex was designed and constructed as one building. Further, the Commission heard that the dispute involves as-constructed structures serving a podium roof level restaurant patio area.
  2. It is the opinion of the Commission the construction requirements for this multiple major occupancy are determined by the building size of the entire building and in this case, the maximum building height of 13 storeys determines that the noncombustible construction provisions in Sentences 3.2.2.23.(2) and 3.2.2.57.(2) of Division B, of the Building Code apply.
  3. The Commission was not satisfied that the compensating measures in the Applicant’s proposal, such as fire protection for adjacent windows, fire-rated coatings, heavy timber components and outlining the travel path, achieve compliance with the applicable noncombustible provisions. The Commission also notes that the as-constructed gazebos are not listed in the Building Code as minor combustible components that would be permitted in the construction of the subject building.
  4. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Commission that no evidence was presented to show any existing firewall that might be adjacent to the subject roof supported occupancy to support the Applicant’s argument that the subject occupancy could be considered as or equivalent to a separate building with a resulting size that would permit combustible construction in combination with noncombustible construction.
      

Dated at the City of Toronto this 15th day in the month of January in the year 2015 for application number B 2014–27.

Tony Chow, Chair

Alison Orr

Gerry Egberts