Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2013 > BCC Ruling No. 13-22-1350

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-22-1350

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-22-1350
Application No.: B 2013-19

 

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 Article 9.10.4.4. of Division B of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Len Radomski, Evian Townes Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Jason Schmidt-Shoukri, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed construction of townhouse blocks, which include covered roof top terraces, can be considered to be a three storey building which sufficiently complies with Article 1.1.2.4. of Division A of the Building Code, when considering Article 9.10.4.4. of Division B and the definitions of “storey” and “floor area” as outlined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code at the Evian on Elizabeth project located at 509 Elizabeth Street, City of Burlington, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Len Radomski
Evian Townes Inc.
Town of Oakville, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Jason Schmidt-Shoukri
Chief Building Official
City of Burlington, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Doug Clancey
Gerry Egberts

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

September 5, 2013

DATE OF RULING

September 5, 2013

APPEARANCES

Len Radomski
Evian Townes Inc.
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Applicant

David Johnson
Randal Brown & Associates Engineering Ltd.
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

John La Selva
Supervisor Building Permits
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

Steve Krizan
Plans Examiner
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

Anil Kumar
Building Technologist / Plan Examiner
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to construct covers over portions of a roof areas located above a third storey, when the roof area is intended for occupancy, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause 1.1.2.4.(1)(a) of Division A of the Building Code, when considering the definitions of “storey” and “floor area” in Clause 1.4.1.2.(1)(b) of Division A and when also considering Article 9.10.4.4. of Division B, and the result would be 4 storey townhouse buildings at 509 Elizabeth Street, Burlington, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Clause 1.4.1.2.(1)(b) of Division A of the Building Code provides a definition for “storey” that includes a portion of a building that is situated between the top of the floor and the ceiling above the floor, if there is no floor above it.

  2. Article 1.4.1.1., “Non-defined Terms”, says that definitions of words and phrases used in the Building Code shall have the meaning that are commonly assigned to them in the context which they are used, taking into account in the specialized use of the terms by the trades and professions to which the terminology applies.

  3. The Commission notes that the Building Code does not provide a definition for “floor” or “ceiling”. The Oxford dictionary provides a meaning for “floor” as the lower surface of a room, on which one may walk and a meaning for “ceiling” as the upper interior surface of a room. Again, the Commission notes that the Building Code does not provide a definition for “room”. The Oxford dictionary provides a meaning for “room” as space that can be occupied.

  4. It is the opinion of the Commission that the proposed construction of a cover over a portion of the roof area intended for occupancy is comparable to the construction of ceilings above floors and that would create an additional storey above each 3 storey dwelling unit and therefore would take it out of Part 9 as permitted by Clause 1.1.2.4.(1)(a) of Division A of the Building Code.

  5. Article 9.10.4.4. of Division B of the Building Code, says roof-top enclosures provided for elevator machinery, stairways and service rooms, used for no purpose other than for service to the building, shall not be considered as a storey in calculating the building height. It is the opinion of the Commission that the proposed construction of a cover over a portion of the roof area intended for occupancy is not a roof-top enclosure as described in Article 9.10.4.4..

Dated at the City of Toronto this 5th day in the month of September in the year 2013 for application number B 2013-19.

Tony Chow, Chair

Doug Clancey

Gerry Egberts