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. 15-34-1423

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-34-1423

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-34-1423
Application No.: B 2015-32

 

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 Articles 9.10.15.4., 9.19.15.5. and Sentence 9.10.15.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code as well as, Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of Regulation 332/12, as amended (“the Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mike Riccardi, for resolution of a dispute with Slavica Josipovic, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the percentage of glazed openings proposed to be included in the exposing building face of two storey residential building sufficiently complies with Articles 9.10.15.4, 9.19.15.5. and Sentence 9.10.15.2. (2) of Division B of the Building Code, when considering the definition of “exposing building face” of Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code at 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mike Riccardi
Fernbrook Homes
Concord, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Slavica Josipovic
Chief Building Official
Town of Halton Hills, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Yaman Uzumeri
Gary Burtch

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

November 5, 2015

DATE OF RULING

November 5, 2015

APPEARANCES

Vijay Shivpaul
Hunt Design Associates
Markham, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Slavica Josipovic
Chief Building Official
Town of Halton Hills, Ontario
Respondent

RULING

 

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has applied for and received a building permit to construct a two storey, single family home at 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario.

The construction in dispute relates to the percentage of glazed openings permitted to be located in the recessed portion of a wall on the second storey of elevation B of the “Huntscott” model home, prepared by Hunt Design and Associates for Fernbook Homes. The design proposes a 1.13 m2 glazed opening to be installed within the recessed portion of the exterior wall, which is 3.75 m2 in area and setback 1.43 m to the adjacent property line.

The dispute intended for the Commission to determine centres on whether sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.10.15.4., 9.19.15.5. and Sentence 9.10.15.2. (2) of the Building Code is achieved, when considering the definition of “exposing building face” as per Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code.

At the hearing, the Commission heard that the Agent for the Applicant had modified the design for the subject home in order to obtain a building permit. Both parties confirmed that a building permit for 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario had been issued and the home has been constructed. Further, both parties expressed that they were seeking a decision from the Commission in the above matter, as it is the Applicant’s intention that this home be a repeat model.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A, Defined Terms

Exposing building face means that part of the exterior wall of a building that faces one direction and is located between ground level and the ceiling of its top storey or, where the building is divided into fire compartments, the exterior wall of a fire compartment that faces one direction.

Article 9.10.15.2. Area and Location of Exposing Building Face

  1. (1) The area of an exposing building face shall be,
    1. (a) taken as the exterior wall area facing in one direction on any side of a building, and
    2. (b) calculated as,
      1. (i) the total area measured from the finished ground level to the uppermost ceiling,
      2. (ii) the area for each fire compartment where a building is divided into fire compartments by fire separations with fire-resistance ratings not less than 45 min, or
      3. (iii) where Table 9.10.15.4. is used to determine maximum area of glazed openings, the area of any number of individual vertical portions of the wall measured from the finished ground level to the uppermost ceiling.

  2. (2) For the purpose of using Table 9.10.15.4. to determine the maximum permitted area of glazed openings in an irregularly-shaped or skewed exterior wall, the location of the exposing building face shall be taken as a vertical plane located so that there are no glazed openings between the vertical plane and the line to which the limiting distance is measured.

Article 9.10.15.4. Glazed Openings in Exposing Building Face

  1. (1) Except as provided in Sentences (3) to (5), the maximum area of glazed openings in an exposing building face shall,
    1. (a) conform to Table 9.10.15.4.,
    2. (b) conform to Subsection 3.2.3. as if the glazed openings were unprotected openings, or
    3. (c) where the limiting distance is not less than 1.2 m, be equal to or less than the limiting distance squared.

TABLE 9.10.15.4.
Maximum Area of Glazed Openings in Exterior Walls of Houses


Forming Part of Sentences 9.10.15.4.(1) and (2)

Item

Column 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

 

Maximum Total Area of Exposing Building Face, m2

Maximum Aggregate Area of Glazed Openings, % of Exposing Building Face Area

Limiting Distance, m

Less than 1.2

1.2

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

6

8

10

12

16

20

25

1.

10

0

8

12

21

33

55

96

100

2.

15

0

8

10

17

25

37

67

100

3.

20

0

8

10

15

21

30

53

100

4.

25

0

8

9

13

19

26

45

100

5.

30

0

7

9

12

17

23

39

88

100

6.

40

0

7

8

11

15

20

32

69

100

7.

50

0

7

8

10

14

18

28

57

100

8.

100

0

7

8

9

11

13

18

34

56

84

100

9.

Over 100

0

7

7

8

9

10

12

19

28

40

55

92

100


  1. (2) Where the limits on the area of glazed openings are determined for individual portions of the exterior wall, as described in Subclause 9.10.15.2.(1)(b)(iii), the maximum aggregate area of glazed openings for any portion shall not exceed the values in the row of Table 9.10.15.4. for the total area of the entire exposing building face based on the limiting distance of the individual portion.

  2. (3) The limits on the area of glazed openings shall not apply to the exposing building face of a dwelling unit facing a detached garage or accessory building, where,
    1. (a) the detached garage or accessory building serves only one dwelling unit,
    2. (b) the detached garage or accessory building is located on the same property as that dwelling unit, and
    3. (c) the dwelling unit served by the detached garage or accessory building is the only major occupancy on the property.

  3. (4) Except as provided in Sentence (5), openings in a wall having a limiting distance of less than 1.2 m shall be protected by closures, of other than wired glass or glass block, whose fire-protection rating is in conformance with the fire-resistance rating required for the wall.

  4. (5) An opening in an exposing building face not more than 130 cm2 shall not be considered an unprotected opening.

Article 9.10.15.5. Construction of Exposing Building Face of Houses

  1. (1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (4) and (6), each exposing building face and any exterior wall located above an exposing building face that encloses an attic or roof space shall be constructed in conformance with Subsection 9.10.8.,
    1. (a) for the exposing building face as a whole, or
    2. (b) for any number of separate portions of the exposing building face.

  2. (2) Sentence (1) does not apply where,
    1. (a) the limiting distance is not less than 1.2 m,
    2. (b) the limiting distance is less than 1.2 m but not less than 0.6 m, provided that the exposing building face has a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min, or
    3. (c) the limiting distance is less than 0.6 m, provided that the exposing building face has a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min and is clad with noncombustible material.

  3. (3) Where the limiting distance is less than 0.6 m, cladding on the exposing building face and on exterior walls located above the exposing building face that enclose an attic or roof spaces need not be noncombustible, provided the cladding,
    1. (a) conforms to Subsection 9.27.12.,
    2. (b) is installed without furring members over not less than 12.7 mm thick gypsum sheathing or over masonry,
    3. (c) has a flame-spread rating not more than 25 when tested in accordance with Sentence 3.1.12.1.(2), and
    4. (d) is not more than 2 mm in thickness exclusive of fasteners, joints and local reinforcements.

  4. (4) The requirements for fire-resistance rating, type of construction and type of cladding need not apply to the exposing building faces of a dwelling unit and a detached garage or accessory building that face each other, where,
    1. (a) the detached garage or accessory building serves a single dwelling unit,
    2. (b) the detached garage or accessory building is located on the same property as that dwelling unit, and
    3. (c) the dwelling unit served by the detached garage or accessory building is the only major occupancy on the property.

  5. (5) Except for buildings containing 1 or 2 dwelling units only, combustible projections on the exterior of a wall that are more than 1 000 mm above ground level, such as balconies, platforms, canopies, eave projections and stairs, and that could expose an adjacent building to fire spread, shall not be permitted within,
    1. (a) 1.2 m of a property line or the centre line of a public way, or
    2. (b) 2.4 m of a combustible projection on another building on the same property.

  6. (6) Heavy timber and steel columns need not conform to the requirements of Sentence (1) provided the limiting distance is not less than 3 m.

3. Applicant’s Position

In response to questions, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that the design drawings had been revised and submitted to the building department in order to obtain a building permit for 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario and consequently, a building permit had been issued by the municipality.

The Agent clarified that the Applicant was seeking a ruling on the percentage permitted glazed openings, based on the original design drawings for 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario, as it was expected to be a repeat model and therefore, a ruling from the Commission concerning the technical dispute would be helpful for future builds.

4. Respondent’s Position

In response to questions, the Respondent submitted that the municipality had received revised design drawings for 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown and had issued a building permit based on the amended building permit application. Further, the Respondent submitted that the house had since been constructed in accordance with the revised building permit drawings.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that it has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute relating to whether the percentage of glazed openings proposed to be included in the exposing building face of two storey residential building, sufficiently complies with Articles 9.10.15.4., 9.19.15.5. and Sentence 9.10.15.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code, when considering the definition of “exposing building face” of Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code at 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario.

6. Reasons

  1. The Building Code Commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose mandate is set out in subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

    Subsection 24.(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, states:

    24. (1) This section applies if there is a dispute (emphasis added)

    (a) between an applicant for a permit, a holder of a permit or a person to whom an order is given and the chief building official, a registered code agency or an inspector concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the building code; (emphasis added)

    The Commission heard that a building permit for the construction of 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario was issued by the municipality based on the review and approval of a revised building permit application submitted by the Applicant, and further that the subject building has since constructed.

    The Commission also heard the parties agree that there was no outstanding technical dispute for the building located at 5 Hidden Lake Trail, Georgetown, Ontario, which is the subject of this hearing.

    Based on the evidence and testimony provided, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no outstanding technical dispute to determine in this case.

  2. The Commission acknowledges the fact that the Applicant intended to seek a Commission ruling on a technical matter that could be applied to homes of similar design in future. However, the Building Code Commission’s hearings are site specific and as such, their decisions are also site specific. The Building Code Commission decisions are not intended to be precedent setting.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 5th day in the month of November in the year 2015 for application number B 2015-32.

Tony Chow, Chair

Yaman Uzumeri

Gary Burtch