Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2000 > BCC Ruling No. 00-15-747

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 00-15-747

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #00-15-747

IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 3.2.8.1.(3), 3.2.8.2.(6), 3.3.3.3.(1), Article 3.2.3.18., Subsection 3.1.10., Clause 3.2.3.1.(1)(b) and Sentence 3.2.3.7.(1) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99 and 597/99 (the "Ontario Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. D. J. Thomas Dutton, Vice-President, Renaissance (Villa Giardino) Community Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Mani Navabi, Chief Building Official, City of Vaughan, Ontario, to determine the applicability and/or compliance with Sentences 3.2.8.1.(3) and 3.2.8.2.(6) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) regarding the proposed main floor interconnected floor space, whether the proposed design of the second floor corridor complies with OBC Sentence 3.3.3.3.(1), and whether the proposed connection to the adjacent existing building provides sufficiency of compliance with OBC Subsection 3.1.10. or Clause 3.2.3.1.(1)(b) and Sentence 3.2.3.7.(1) at Villa Giardino, 7365 Martin Grove Road, Vaughan, Ontario.

APPLICANT
Mr. D. J. Thomas Dutton, Vice-President
Renaissance (Villa Giardino) Community Corporation
Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT
Mr. Mani Navabi
Chief Building Official
City of Vaughan, Ontario

PANEL
Mr. Kenneth Peaker (Chair-Designate)
Mr. Fred Barkhouse
Mr. James Lischkoff

PLACE
Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING
March 29, 2000

DATE OF RULING
March 29, 2000

APPEARANCES
Mr. Allan E. Larden, Principal
Larden Muniak Consulting Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Mr. Mani Navabi
Chief Building Official
City of Vaughan
The Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. D. J. Thomas Dutton, Vice-President, Renaissance (Villa Giardino) Community Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, has applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a retirement home known as Villa Giardino, at 7365 Martin Grove Road, Vaughan, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The Applicant is proposing to construct a new, L-shaped, retirement facility intended as a residence for elderly people of European background. The building is to contain a total of 124 suites, a few of which may have dual occupancy at times, thus resulting in a maximum number of residents of approximately 130 persons. The operating philosophy, as described by the Applicant, is to encourage an independent lifestyle for the residents with most suites containing small kitchenettes thereby resembling apartments. As well, so that some degree of "age in place" flexibility is provided in the building, an entire floor has been designed as an assisted living area where food is prepared and a level of nursing service is offered.

The proposed building is described as five storeys in building height, 1,756 m2 in building area, and is of noncombustible construction. It will be equipped with a full sprinkler system with quick response sprinkler heads, a fire alarm system and a standpipe and hose system. The structure will be connected at two levels to an existing retirement facility on the adjacent lot to the east.

The Applicant and Respondent have apparently agreed that the subject building should be classified as having Group A - Division 2, Group B - Division 3 and Group C occupancies. The Applicant has elected to construct the subject building according to the occupancy with the most stringent standards, in this case the B3 occupancy. Because of the height of the building, the specific provision involved is Article 3.2.2.38., "Group B, Division 2 or Division 3, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered". A floor by floor description of the building follows below:

Due to the moderate slope at the site, the ground floor is proposed as having two levels (referred to as the lower main floor and the upper main floor). As designed, the lower main floor is to be entirely below grade at the north end of the building, whereas at the south it would be at grade. The proposed connection to the adjacent six storey existing building to the east would be provided at both the upper and lower main floor levels. On the upper main floor a vestibule-type walkway is proposed to be constructed onto the east end of the new building. The punch out panel on this level in the exterior west wall of the existing building would be removed to create the passageway into that building. The exposing wall construction proposed at either end of the vestibule includes a new masonry or concrete partition wall with wired glass screen in the new building which is rated as providing a 2 hour separation from the walkway and a solid masonry wall in the existing building offering a 2 hour separation. The vestibule itself will be built with a 2 hour rated concrete roof supported by 2 hour rated construction and enclosed with glass partition walls on the north and south.

Below the walkway area, however, at the lower main floor, the new building is to be extended to the existing one, with the space presently proposed as storage. As such, at this level the existing building's punch out panel would remain. Three of the storage room's four walls would be in the new building and would be constructed with 2 hour rated concrete and masonry. The west facing 2 hour rated exposing wall of the existing building would comprise the fourth wall of this room. This area will also be capped by a 2 hour concrete slab. No east facing exposing wall is to be constructed in the new building's connecting storage room that would abut the existing building's west wall.

The east-west wing of the main levels is to contain the A2 occupancy. Included in this area is a lounge, lobby, wellness centre, chapel, wine tasting room, hair salon and a pool on the lower main floor and a library, gallery, crafts room and dining and kitchen facilities on the upper main floor. (This area contains some administrative and utility space as well.) Also contained within the A2 occupancy is a large opening in the floor area connecting the two levels of the main floor. The opening occurs in the north-west corner of the building where the principal entrance is located. A large curved stair connects the two levels of the opening. As a result of this floor penetration, the entire A2 area is considered to be an interconnected floor space.

The north-south wing of the main floors is proposed as having a Group C occupancy and is intended for independent, ambulatory residents. A total of 16 units will be provided on the two levels, nine of which will be studios and seven as one bedroom suites. This area will be separated from the adjoining A2 space by a 2 hour fire separation. Exiting on the lower main floor is by an exit door directly to the exterior at the south end of the corridor. As well, all suites on this level are provided with an exit door to patio areas at grade. Occupants of the upper main floor are served by two exit stairs (No. 3 and 4) leading directly to the exterior, one at the north end and one at the south end of the corridor.

The second floor is proposed as the B3 care occupancy area. It is to consist of 32 units, an assisted dining room, a nurse's station with medical room, amenity space and a linen area. This floor will be separated by a 2 hour separation from the A2 and C occupancies below. Two corridors will serve the units on this floor, one is to run east/west while the other north/south. The exiting will be provided by three exit stairs; Stair No. 1 at the east end of the east/west corridor, Stair No. 3 at the south end of the north/south corridor, and Stair No. 2 located where the two wings of the building converge. While the occupants of this floor will be provided with a level of care, including their own dining facilities, they will not be prevented from visiting other areas of the building. To do so, however, they may require assistance.

The east/west corridor on the second floor will not terminate precisely where the north/south corridors begins, it is to extend approximately 1.8 m to the west beyond the intersection point with the north/south corridor. In this area the east/west corridor also widens to form a rectangular space to which access is provided to four suite doors.

Floors three to five are classified as having a Group C occupancy and are also for independent, ambulatory occupants. The third and fourth floors will have the same L-shaped configuration as the second floor. These floors will include 31 units each (a mix of studio and one bedroom suites), laundry facilities and amenity areas. The fire resistance rating of the separation between the third floor and the B3 occupancy below will also be 2 hours. The exiting arrangement on this floor will be identical to that of the second floor. These two floors have the same corridor configuration as the second floor, except that in the area where the east/west corridor extends beyond the intersection point of the north/south corridor only three suite doors are proposed. The corridor design, however, is not an issue on the Group C floors.

The building is proposed to extend to a fifth floor in the eastern portion of the east/west wing only. This floor will contain 14 units, most of them one bedroom suites, as well as the laundry and amenity areas found on other floors. The exiting for this floor will be via Stairs No. 1 and 2 at the east and west ends respectively of the corridor.

The proposed construction in dispute involves three areas; the interconnected floor space in the A2 occupancy, the second floor corridor design, and the connection between the new and old buildings.

  1. Dispute

There are three issues at dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent. On the first issue the primary question is whether, in a building containing a B3 occupancy, an interconnected floor space is permitted when considering Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) of the Ontario Building Code. This provision prohibits floor areas containing sleeping rooms to be built as a part of an interconnected floor space in a building that contains a B2 or B3 major occupancy. As noted, the proposed building will contain a B3 occupancy on the second floor and the Group C areas on the upper and lower main floor will be on the same level as the interconnected floor space to be located in the A2 area. A 2 hour separation, however, will divide these three occupancies. At issue therefore is whether Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) is applicable to the subject building and whether it can be read as preventing the construction of the interconnected floor space.

If the answer to the first question is that an interconnected floor space is allowed in the Villa Giardino building, the subsequent question then becomes whether the proposed design of the floor penetration complies with the conditions (see below) set out in OBC Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) and, if so, thereby may be exempt from the construction requirements for buildings with an interconnected floor space as determined in Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. While the first two conditions, (a) and (b), in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) clearly seem to be met in the proposed structure, the fulfilment of condition (c), which excludes certain occupancies from being in an interconnected floor space area, causes dispute. Since the common activity rooms located in the A2 interconnected floor space area may, through the provision of assistance and/or supervision, be used by residents from the B3 floor, the issue then becomes whether the restrictions of the B3 classification should be extended into the A2 zone.

The second issue is whether the proposed design for the second floor B3 occupancy corridor that includes a roughly 1.8 m extension of the east/west corridor past the connection point of the north/south corridor is considered a dead end corridor and thus contravenes Sentence 3.3.3.3.(1) of the OBC. This provision stipulates that corridors used by the public or serving patients or residents must not have a dead-end portion unless that part of the building is provided with a second and separate means of egress. The layout of the east/west corridor on the second floor does continue beyond the intersection point with the north/south corridor. Further, this part of the building is not served with a separate means of egress. Nevertheless, the length of corridor in question is only approximately 1.8 m. Moreover, the Code does not define when a certain corridor configuration for this occupancy must be considered a dead-end situation.

The third dispute involves the design of the proposed two level connection to the existing building on the adjacent site. Regarding the upper main floor, the question is whether the connection may be considered a walkway and would therefore be permitted to comply with Article 3.2.3.18. of the OBC. This Article dictates the construction requirements (see below) for walkways connecting two adjacent buildings. Pertinent to this discussion are the requirements that the walkway must be noncombustible when the two connected buildings are noncombustible construction and that at least a 45 minute separation be provided at both ends of the walkway when it is closed.

The walkway referred to in OBC 3.2.3.18. is defined in Article 1.1.3.2. as "a covered or roofed pedestrian thoroughfare used to connect 2 or more buildings". As stated in the March 20, 2000 Technical Background Information memo issued for this dispute by the Housing Development and Buildings Branch, " (t)his definition implies that a walkway [original emphasis] is a separate entity that is used to connect 2 or more buildings. As such, it should not be part of any of the buildings that it connects to". We agree. And while the proposed upper main floor building connection, or walkway, appears that it will be separated from the new and existing structures at this level, the entire walkway, however, runs directly on top of the storage room below. In our view, this contravenes the meaning of walkway as envisaged by the Code.

Thus, as two physically connected buildings with a doorway penetration, the issue then becomes whether the current design provides sufficiency of compliance with either of the ways the OBC permits a separate building to be contiguous or closely spaced with another building. The relevant provisions are Subsection 3.1.10., "Firewalls", or Articles 3.2.3.1., "Limiting Distance and Area of Unprotected Openings", and 3.2.3.7., "Construction of Exposing Building Face." The difference in terms of construction in order to conform with these provisions is that for the subject building a 2 hour rated wall would be required to achieve a firewall, whereas a 1 hour rated wall is necessary in the case of an exposing building face with 0 m limiting distance.

Regarding the storage room, the issue is the same. As noted, there is no exposing wall of the new building proposed at the east end of the storage room that would face or abut the west wall of the existing building. Essentially, one of the four walls in the new building's storage room is comprised of the west-facing wall of the existing building.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 3.2.8.1. - Mezzanines and Openings through Floor Assemblies

    1. ,
    2. ,
    3. A floor area containing sleeping rooms in a building of Group B, Division 2 or 3 major occupancy shall not be constructed as part of an interconnected floor space.

Sentence 3.2.8.2. - Exceptions to Special Protection

  1. A interconnected floor space need not conform to the requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. provided:

    1. the interconnected floor space consists of the first storey and the storey next above or below it, but not both,
    2. the interconnected floor space is sprinklered, and
    3. the interconnected floor space contains only Group A, Division 1, 2 or 3, Group D, Group E, or Group F, Division 3 occupancies. (See Appendix A.)

Sentence 3.3.3.3. - Corridors

    1. A corridor used by the public or serving patients or residents shall have no dead-end portion unless the area served by the dead-end portion has a second and separate means of egress.

Article 3.2.3.18. - Walkway between Buildings

    1. Except as required by Sentence 3.2.3.19.(2), if buildings are connected by a walkway, each building shall be separated from the walkway by a fire separation with a fire-resistance rating not less than 45 min.

  1. Except as permitted by Sentence (3), a walkway connected to a building required to be of non-combustible construction shall also be of non-combustible construction.

  1. A walkway connected to a building required to be of non-combustible construction is permitted to be of heavy timber construction provided:
    1. not less than 50% of the area of any enclosing perimeter walls is open to the outdoors, and
    2. the walkway is at ground level.

  1. A walkway of noncombustible construction used only as a pedestrian thoroughfare need not conform to the requirements of Articles 3.2.3.13. and 3.2.3.14.

  1. A walkway between buildings shall be not more than 9 m (29 ft 6 in) wide.

Subsection 3.1.10. - Firewalls

(REFER TO OBC)



Clause 3.2.3.1. - Limiting Distance and Area of Unprotected Openings

  1. Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.3.9. to 3.2.3.11., the area of unprotected openings in an exposing building face for the applicable limiting distance shall not be more than the value determined in accordance with:

a. ,

b. Table 3.2.3.1.C. or Table 3.2.3.1.D. for an exposing building face conforming to Article 3.2.3.2. of a sprinklered fire compartment that is part of a building which is sprinklered in conformance with Section 3.2.

(See A-3, Fire Fighting Assumptions in Appendix A.) (See also Section 3.13.)

Sentence 3.2.3.7. - Construction of Exposing Building Face

  1. Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.3.9. and 3.2.3.10., if a limiting distance shown in Table 3.2.3.1.A. or Table 3.2.3.1.C. for Group A, B, C, D or Group F, Division 3 occupancy classification permits an exposing building face to have unprotected openings not more than 10% of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall be:

   a. of non-combustible construction having a fire-resistance rating not less  than 1 h, and

   b. clad with non-combustible cladding.

5. Applicant's Position

Regarding the issue of whether an interconnected floor space is permitted in a building that contains a B3 occupancy, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) makes no such prohibition. In his view, this provision simply seeks to prevent an interconnected floor space from being located in a B3 occupancy and does not preclude the possibility that one may be constructed in a building that houses somewhere within a B3 occupancy. OBC 3.2.8.1.(3) is not applicable to the subject design, he argued, because it proposes that the B3 be located wholly on the second floor and the interconnected floor space only on the upper and lower main floors, thereby completely separating the occupancies. Moreover, the only dwelling units on the main floor levels are classified as Group C occupancies and they are also separate from the A2 area. As he noted, the A2 area containing the interconnected floor space, the main floor Group C and the second floor B3 are all separated from each other by two hour separations.

In so far as the question of whether the interconnected floor space requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. must be met, due to the fact that the B3 residents, with assistance, may occasionally use the amenity area found in the A2 space, the Agent argued that the presence of B3 occupants in the A2 area does not change the A2 into a B3 occupancy. "This (the Agent stated) is consistent with long established means of regulating hospital (B2) occupancy design. Patient care areas which are considered to be B2 occupancies are typically patient sleeping rooms and medical treatment facilities where patients are immobilized or unconscious, such as operating theatres. Portions of hospital buildings containing examination rooms, clinics or facilities such as physiotherapy treatment areas are considered to be Group D business and personal services occupancies and are not required to be designed to the requirements applicable to B2 occupancies. If this is the approach to the assigning of occupancy classification in hospitals, it does not make sense that a more restrictive approach should apply to a building containing a B3 occupancy on one floor level.

"In the context of hospital and nursing home design, OBC Subsection 3.3.3. has always been understood as applying to patient sleeping or medical treatment areas and not to other portions of the building where patients or residents may happen to visit for consultation, eating, recreation or even some forms of treatment.

"OBC 3.2.8.1.(3) has been cited as a basis to deny the design of the interconnected floor space. The argument would seem to be that any floor area containing sleeping rooms - even if the entire floor area was to be regarded as Group C occupancy - could not have a portion of the floor area (not including the sleeping rooms) designed as an interconnected floor space because somewhere else in a portion of the building remote from the interconnected floor space there was a B3 occupancy. This does not appear to be reasonable; our interpretation of this sentence is that the sleeping rooms in question are B2 or B3 sleeping rooms in which case the portion of floor area containing such sleeping rooms is not to be constructed as part of an interconnected floor space.

"This argument is reinforced by OBC 3.2.8.6. which applies to B occupancy sleeping rooms in a larger atrium building where configurational and smoke control restrictions are imposed on the atrium design. In such case(s) (sic) it is clearly recognized that Group B sleeping rooms can be in a floor area which is, in part, within an interconnected floor space, as long as the portion of floor area containing the B sleeping rooms is not within the interconnected floor space.

"OBC 3.2.8.6.(1) is not referenced as an exception to OBC 3.2.8.1.(3); this strongly supports the notion that the intent of OBC 3.2.8.1.(3) is to preclude a portion of a floor area containing B occupancy sleeping room from being within an interconnected floor space and that other portions of the same floor area could be within an interconnected floor space."

Regarding whether the interconnected floor space construction requirements are applicable, the Agent stated:

"There is no application to OBC Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. for the case at hand. The design is intended to comply with OBC 3.2.8.2.(6) which concerns a 2-storey interconnected floor space where one of the storeys is the first storey.

"All three conditions in 3.2.8.2.(6) are met; the occupancies in the interconnected floor space are Group A2 or D (not Group B); the interconnected floor space consists of portions of the first two storeys of the building; the interconnected floor space is sprinklered.

"It is worth noting that OBC 3.2.8.2.(6) now only refers to "occupancies" in terms of those uses which are permitted within the interconnected floor space. Previous editions of the Code referred to "major occupancies" which occasionally resulted in problems when a very literal-minded building official was applying the Code sentence. For example, 2-storey interconnected floor spaces containing recreational facilities in a Group C major occupancy apartment building were sometimes questioned because the reference was to major occupancies and not occupancies in general. If amenity spaces which are subsidiary components of a Group C occupancy apartment building are permitted to be in an interconnected floor space, even though they are held by some to be subsidiary components of the major Group C occupancy, then the same principle should apply to amenity areas in an interconnected floor space in a building which contains Group C and B3 major occupancies."

On the issue of the second floor corridor design, the Agent disputed that it represented a dead-end situation and instead likened it to an alcove. He noted that since there is no Code definition for a dead-end corridor for such a building, then it is up to common sense interpretation to determine whether such a condition applies. In his view, "a dead-end condition occurs when someone in that portion of corridor has no choice of travel in different directions" and "travel is constrained in one direction for some distance before a choice of direction of travel is available". This is not the case in the present situation, he argued.

The Agent then described how in the past the opinion of the Housing Development and Building Branch was that if there was a niche or alcove in a corridor design where the width of the space did not exceed its depth then it need not be considered as a dead-end. He argued that such an interpretation represented a functional common sense application as to what construes a dead-end situation and would clearly exempt the Villa Giardino example.

To ameliorate the potential for any practical or Code compliance issues regarding this corridor, the Agent offered two solutions. The first involved reconfiguring the partition walls in the corridor so that the alcove becomes part of a U-shaped corridor design. The second was to add additional exit signs providing direction at the intersection point of the corridors.

With respect to the issue of the connection to the adjacent building, the Agent maintained that the proposed walkway on the upper main floor does comply with the definition thereof in the OBC. He argued that the Code definition does not impose any restrictions on design, it simply describes what a walkway is. And this description, in his view, encompasses the subject Villa Giardino design.

Regardless of whether the Commission accepts the proposed design as a walkway, the Agent argued that the intended construction at both the upper and lower main levels would provide an adequate level of fire safety. In describing the storage room, he reiterated that there is no passageway between the two buildings and that the room is surrounded by 2 hour rated walls and ceiling. The walls at either end of the walkway (especially the existing building's wall) would provide more than a 45 minute separation as required by Article 3.2.3.18. and the concrete roof is to be 2 hour rated. The Agent did, however, offer to upgrade the new building's walkway wall to a 1.5 or 2 hour separation.

  1. Respondent's Position

At the outset, the Respondent indicated that the proposed retirement home was a facility that caused him some concern for several reasons. For example, while the Code views the structure as being five stories in reality it is six levels. It is also to be built very close to the neighbouring building. Moreover, he indicated that he was not entirely comfortable with the classification of the building. As a result, he argued that it was important to consider the three disputed areas seriously. Any further concession might be quite detrimental to the safety of the building.

On the issue of whether an interconnected floor space is allowed in the subject building, the Respondent submitted that his reading of Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) is that it prohibits such a floor penetration in a building that houses a B3 occupancy. This, he noted, clearly creates a non-compliant situation with respect to the proposed A2 interconnected floor space area. He continued by stating that if only Group C occupancies existed outside of the A2 area, then conformance with Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) would be achieved.

The Respondent then argued that if an interconnected floor space were to be allowed, it should have to meet the construction requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. In his view, these provisions must be met because condition (c) of Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) has not been met. This Clause sets out what occupancies can be found in an interconnected floor space and Group C and B3 uses are not among them. As he argued, since the residents of especially the B3 floor, through supervision or assistance, have access to the amenity areas on the A2 floor space, then the level of protection provided in the B3 area should be extended into the A2 zone. This should result in the omitting of the interconnected floor space entirely from the building's design, but at a minimum the floor penetration should be compensated for by complying with OBC 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11.

With respect to the corridor design issue, the Respondent stated that the current layout contains a dead end situation. Sentence 3.3.3.3.(1) does not permit such a condition. Unlike other occupancies, no dead end corridors of any length are allowed in the proposed structure.

Regarding the building connections, the Respondent noted that the walkway is to sit on top of part of the new building, i.e., the storage room. As a result, he argued that the walkway does not meet the Code definition of being a structure between two buildings and thus must meet either the firewall standards or the exposing building wall at 0 m limiting distance requirements. The design of the storage room, he submitted, makes it clear that the new building is being extended directly to the old, and the fact that no fourth wall facing the old building was to be constructed concerned him. He also indicated concern about the potential storage of combustible materials in this room. The Respondent thought that compromises should not be made on the building connections because the proposed work involves new construction.

  1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission (BCC) that the proposed building, which is to contain a B3 occupancy on a remote and separated floor from an interconnected floor space within the structure, complies with Sentence 3.2.8.1.(3) of the Ontario Building Code and the location of separated Group C occupancies that are to occupy a portion of the same floors containing the interconnected floor space are also in compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

It is also the decision of the BCC that the subject interconnected floor space complies with Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) and need not meet the construction requirements of Articles 3.2.8.3. to 3.2.8.11. of the OBC.

It is also the decision of the BCC that the "alcove" located in the public corridor at the north-east corner of the second floor is not considered to be a dead end situation provided two exit signs are installed to define the direction of egress in the area of the alcove.

And it is also the decision of the BCC that the connections between the adjacent existing building meets the intent of the Code provided a vertical fire separation conforming to either Subsection 3.1.10. or Clause 3.2.3.1.(1)(b) and Sentence 3.2.3.7.(1) be incorporated into its design.

  1. Reasons

a. The occupancies are separated from the interconnected floor space by 2 hour fire separations that are equal to the rating of the floor slab and therefore are deemed to be not within the interconnected floor space.

b. The interconnected floor space is located entirely within an area considered to be an A2 occupancy.

c. The length of dead end corridor is minimal and the width of the alcove exceeds its depth.

d. The area proposed as a walkway does not conform to the OBC's definition since it is placed directly upon a portion of the new building.

e. The new building at both the upper and lower main floor levels does not have an exposing building wall at the property line.


Dated at Toronto this 29th day in the month of March, in the year 2000, for application number 2000-14.





____________________________

Mr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair-Designate





_______________________

Mr. Fred Barkhouse





__________________________

Mr. James Lischkoff