Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2011 > BCC Ruling No. 11-02-1275

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 11-02-1275

Email this page

BCC Logo

Ruling No. 11-02-1275
Application No. B 2010-36

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 Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of Division B of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the  Building Code).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Roy Megna, Megna Real Estate Insurance Ltd. Brokerage, for the resolution of a dispute with Doug Clark, Chief Building Official, City of Brantford, to determine whether the proposal to connect a new laundry dryer exhaust duct to an existing washroom exhaust duct in various suites of an existing 4 storey, Group C occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of Division B of the Building Code at 793 Colborne Street, Brantford, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Roy Megna
Megna Real Estate Insurance Ltd., Brokerage  
Hamilton, ON

RESPONDENT

Doug Clark
Chief Building Official  
City of Brantford

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Mina Tesseris
Rick Florio

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

January 19, 2011
 

DATE OF RULING

January 19, 2011

APPEARANCES

Roy Megna
Megna Real Estate Insurance Ltd., Brokerage  
Hamilton, ON
The Applicant

J.D. Hubbert
J.D. Hubbert & Associates
Toronto, ON
Agent for the Applicant

Doug Clark
Chief Building Official  
City of Brantford  
The Respondent

Russ Thompson
Deputy Chief Building Official
City of Brantford
Designate for the Respondent 

 

RULING

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, and is renovating an existing Group C residential building at 793 Colborne Street, Brantford, Ontario.

The subject building is a five storey residential building comprised of 76 dwelling units having a building area of approximately 7350 m², and is equipped with a fire alarm system and standpipe and hose system.

Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of the Building Code are in dispute in this case.
Both these Code provisions require exhaust ducts connected to laundry drying equipment to be independent of other exhaust ducts.

The construction in dispute in this case, involves the proposal to connect a newly constructed laundry dryer duct to an existing washroom exhaust duct, using a “Y” connection located inside the wall, which would combine the two ducts into a single duct before the wall cap inlet. This proposal is for various suites located within the building.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

6.2.3.8. Exhaust Ducts and Outlets
  1. (7) Exhaust ducts connected to laundry drying equipment shall be,
    1. (a) independent of other exhaust ducts,
6.2.4.11. Exhaust Ducts and Outlets
  1. (3) Exhaust ducts directly connected to laundry drying equipment shall be independent of other exhaust ducts.

3. Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant submitted that existing residential building is undergoing a renovation that is part of a project to upgrade the laundry facilities in various suites. The Agent reported that in this case, the dryer exhaust ducts have been tied into the existing washroom exhaust ducts using a “y” connection. The Agent reported that the “y" connection is located on the interior side of the exterior wall close to the exterior exhaust outlet.

The Agent explained that to save from cutting another hole through the exterior wall of the building for each of the suites being renovated, a proposal was made to connect the dryer exhaust duct to the existing washroom exhaust duct.

The Agent argued that in his opinion both the washroom exhaust duct and laundry exhaust duct can be considered to be independent from each other, as each exhaust duct runs independently up to a few inches behind the exterior wall where they are then joined by a “y” connection.

The Agent submitted that each exhaust duct has been equipped with a backdraft and fire damper as well as an exhaust fan.
The Agent reported that the “y” connection is located at a great distance from each of the exhaust fans. As a result, in his professional opinion, any moisture and/or temperature differences or air contaminants in either duct will not impact the effective operation of either of the exhaust ducts.
The Agent submitted that access for cleaning has been provided for both exhaust fans and an access door has been provided to service the “y” connection if necessary and further, that there is a removable section of duct at the “y” connection for cleaning, if required.
The Agent submitted that in addition to the laundry dryer’s lint trap, a secondary lint filter located in the duct above the dryer has been installed before the booster fan as a compensating measure, as it is not a requirement of the Building Code.
In summary, the Agent argued that when considering the above construction detail and design of the subject exhaust ducts provide sufficiency of compliance with the Code.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Respondent submitted that the exhaust ducting combination as proposed, does not meet Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of the Building Code.

The Respondent submitted that the Code specifies that ducts directly connected to laundry drying equipment must be independent of other exhaust ducts. The Respondent argued the proposed arrangement to connect the dryer exhaust ducts with the existing washroom exhaust ducts using a “y” connection, does not satisfy this Code requirement.

In his view, the Respondent maintained that independent exhaust ducts must be extended independently through the exterior wall in order to satisfy the Code and as such, the proposed arrangement does not achieve compliance with the Building Code.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to connect a new laundry dryer exhaust duct to an existing washroom exhaust duct in various suites of an existing 4 storey, Group C occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of Division B of the Building Code at 793 Colborne Street, Brantford, Ontario.

6. Reasons


  1. Both Clause 6.2.3.8.(7)(a) and Sentence 6.2.4.11.(3) of Division B of the Building Code requires exhaust ducts that are connected to laundry drying equipment to be independent of other exhaust ducts.

    In this case, the subject dryer exhaust duct has been tied into the existing washroom exhaust duct using a “y” connection. The “y" connection is located on the interior side of the exterior wall close to the exterior exhaust outlet. It is the Commission’s opinion that as the connection of the two exhaust ducts occurs so close to the exterior wall, the subject dryer exhaust duct sufficiently maintains its separation and independence of any other exhaust duct.

  2. The Commission heard that each exhaust duct has been equipped with a backdraft and fire damper as well as an exhaust fan.

  3. In this case, the “y” connection is located at a great distance from both the exhaust fans. As a result, it is the Commission’s opinion that any moisture and/or temperature differences or air contaminants in either duct will not impact the effective operation of the exhaust ducts.

  4. The Commission was advised that access for cleaning has been provided for both exhaust fans and an access door has been provided to service the “y” connection if necessary. The Commission was also advised that there is a removable section of duct at the “y” connection for cleaning, if required.

  5. In addition to the laundry dryer’s lint trap, the Commission heard that a secondary lint filter located in the duct above the dryer has been installed before the booster fan. The secondary lint trap is not a requirement of the Building Code.

Dated at Toronto this 19th day in the month of January in the year 2011 for application number
B 2010-36.

Tony Chow, Chair

Mina Tesseris

Rick Florio