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. 13-10-1338

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-10-1338

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-10-1338
Application No.: B 2013-05

 

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Scott Dixon, Allen & Sheriff Architects Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with John Tutert, Chief Building Official, to determine whether an extended sprinkler system designed to provide sprinkler protection for a new addition to an existing building provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, when considering Part 11 of Division B, for the public school at 2220 Caldwell Drive, Town of Oakville, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Scott Dixon
Allen & Sheriff Architects Inc.
Richmond Hill, Ontario

RESPONDENT

John Tutert
Chief Building Official
Town of Oakville, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Ed Link
Alison Orr

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

May 9, 2013

DATE OF RULING

May 9, 2013

APPEARANCES

Scott Dixon
Allen & Sheriff Architects Inc.
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Applicant

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

John Tutert
Chief Building Official
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Respondent

Will Crognale
Assistant Chief Fire Prevention Officer
Town of Oakville, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that an extended sprinkler system designed to provide sprinkler protection for a new addition to an existing building provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, when considering Part 11 of Division B, for the public school at 2220 Caldwell Drive, Town of Oakville, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A of the Building Code provides the parameters regarding the application of Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code. It states that Part 11 applies to the design and construction of existing buildings, or parts of existing buildings, that have been in existence for at least five years. The Commission heard that the subject building is more than five years old. Therefore, Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code applies to the construction.

  2. Article 1.1.2.7. of Division A of the Building Code states that except as provided in Sections 3.17. and 9.41. of Division B and Part 11 of Division B, if an existing building is extended or is subject to material alteration or repair, this Code applies only to the design and construction of the extensions and those parts of the building that are subject to the material alteration or repair. Appendix A-1.1.2.7. describes the extent of renovation subject to the Building Code: only areas or portions of a building being renovated, or other parts of a building adversely affected by that renovation need comply with the requirements of the Building Code; all other areas or portions need not comply with the Code and may remain unchanged. The Commission heard that the existing sprinkler system in the existing building was extended to the addition, and was not subject to material alteration or repair. The Commission also heard that the construction of the addition and extension of the sprinkler system would not adversely affect the portion of the existing sprinkler system in the existing building.

  3. Article 11.1.2.1. of Division B of the Building Code states that where an existing building is subject to extension, material alteration or repair, the proposed construction shall comply with Section 11.3. Article 11.3.1.2. states that except as provided in Article 11.3.3.1. and Section 11.5., the design and construction of a new building system or extension of an existing building system shall comply with other Parts. Appendix A-11.3.1.2. states that generally, new or extended building systems should follow the Code for new construction, and where necessary, may seek some relief through compliance alternatives, alternative measures or match existing. The Commission heard that the extended portion of the sprinkler system would be constructed in accordance with other Parts of the Code.

  4. Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of Division B of the Building Code states except as permitted by Sentences (2) to (4), an automatic sprinkler systems shall be designed, constructed, installed and tested in conformance with NFPA 13, “Installation of Sprinkler Systems.” The Commission heard that the new addition to the existing building is sprinklered and that the sprinklers in the new addition were installed in accordance to the Building Code and conform to the requirements of NFPA 13.

  5. The Commission notes that NFPA 13 does not require seismic protection; however it does speak to how seismic protection should be achieved if it is required. Subsection 4.1.8. of Division B of the Building Code deals with seismic protection. The Commission heard that the sprinkler system for the new addition has been provided with seismic protection.

  6. Article 1.2.2.1., Characteristics of Materials, Appliances, Systems and Equipment, of Division A, states, all materials, appliances, systems and equipment installed to meet the requirements of this Code shall possess the necessary characteristics to perform their intended functions when installed in a building. The Commission was not convinced that the entire sprinkler system once connected and installed would be unable to perform its intended function.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 9th day in the month of May in the year 2013 for application number B 2013-05.

Tony Chow, Chair

Ed Link

Alison Orr