Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1996 > BCC Ruling No. 96-24-507

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-24-507

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-24-507

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 3.2.9.1. of the Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93, 160/93, 383/94 and 20/95 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. H. Sinke, Project Co- ordinator, Abcott Construction Ltd. vs. Mr. Doug Ferguson, Chief Building Official, City of Brantford, concerning whether not providing a standpipe and hose system in a low hazard industrial occupancy where compensating fire protection is provided in the form of fire extinguishers and a fire safety program provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.9.1. of the Building Code at the Namasco Blanking Centre, 546 Elgin Street, Brantford, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. H. Sinke
Project Co-ordinator
Abcott Construction Ltd.
Brantford, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Doug Ferguson
Chief Building Official
City of Brantford

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair
Mr. Rick Florio
Ms. Lesia Beznaczuk

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

May 30th, 1996

APPEARANCES

Mr. R.W. Phillips
Project Engineer
J.H. Cohoon Eng.Ltd.
For the Applicant

Mr. H. Sinke
Project Co-ordinator
Abcott Const. Ltd
The Applicant

Mr. Doug Ferguson
Chief Building Official
City of Brantford
The Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. H. Sinke, Project Co-ordinator, Abcott Construction Ltd. is an applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct an addition for coil storage and steel processing at the Namasco Blanking Centre, 546 Elgin Street, Brantford, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The existing one storey building and proposed addition will be utilized for coil storage and steel processing. The building is classified as a Low Hazard Industrial Occupancy (i.e. F-3).

The building is not sprinklered nor does it have a fire alarm system. The building area of the complete building will be 7656 m² (i.e. 4084 m² existing and 3572 m² proposed).

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 3.2.9.1. of the Building Code. At issue is a proposal to provide compensating fire protection measures in the form of fire extinguishers and a fire safety program in lieu of providing a standpipe and hose system.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Article 3.2.9.1. Standpipe and Hose Systems Where Required

  1. Except as provided in Article 3.2.9.2., a standpipe and hose system shall be installed in every building that

    1. is more than

i. 3 storeys in building height, or

ii. 14 m (45 ft 11 in) in height measured between grade and the ceiling of the uppermost storey,

    1. is greater in building area than the area shown in Table 3.2.8.A. for the applicable building area shown on the Table where the building

i. is not sprinklered, and

ii. is not more than 14 m (45 m 11 in) high measured between grade and the ceiling of the top storey, or

    1. contains more than one storey below grade

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that during the design process for the original building, the general contractor at that time applied for an exemption to the requirement for the standpipe and hose system on the basis of a previous BCC Ruling (i.e. 87-8-193).

The Applicant respectfully requested that the previous Ruling be extended to the proposed addition. The Applicant submitted the following information to support their application:

  • The building is of noncombustible construction.
  • The activity in this building is cold steel processing which does not create a likelihood of fire.
  • The premises are equipped and/or will be equipped with adequate fire extinguishers.
  • A fire safety committee has been organized and is operating in this facility.

The Applicant proposed to provide a fire access route and private hydrant(s) along the east face of the building as a compensating measure.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that the existing 4,084 m² building was granted an exemption from the requirement to install a standpipe and hose system by the former Chief Building Official. This exemption was granted on the basis of BCC Ruling number 87-8-193 which involved a 5,120 m² building.

The Respondent submitted that an addition is now proposed to bring the total area of the building to 7,660 m². This building is now well beyond the scope of the building governed by Ruling 87-8-193.

The Respondent further submitted that Article 3.2.9.1. of the Building Code requires that a standpipe and hose system be installed in a one storey F-3 occupancy greater than 3,000 m² in building area and the total area of the building with the addition will be in excess of twice that area.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the building provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.9.1. of the Building Code provided a fire department access route and private hydrant(s) are installed along the east face of the building parallel to Plant Farm Road.

  1. Reasons:

i. The building contains a low fire load.

ii. Additional fire extinguishers will be provided.

iii. A fire safety committee is in place and operational.

iv. No further additions to the building are contemplated.

v. Additional fire department access and hydrant(s) will enhance fire fighting capability.

vi. The installation of the hydrant(s) and access routes will require fire department pre-fire planning for the facility.

Dated at Toronto, this 30th day, in the month of May, in the year 1996, for application number 1996-25.

Roy Philippe

Rick Florio

Lesia Beznaczuk