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. 96-25-508

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-25-508

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-25-508

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) 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 Ms. Jacqueline Mills, Home Owner, Toronto for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Dennis Perlin, Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, concerning whether extending the limiting distance for the south wall of the building to the south side of a right of way on the adjacent property to maximize the permitted percentage of unprotected openings or glazed areas provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) of the Building Code, at 1 Jean Street, Toronto, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Ms. Jacqueline Mills
1 Jean Street
Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Dennis T. Perlin
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair
Ms. Susan Friedrich
Mr. Demir Delen

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

July 9, 1996

APPEARANCES

Ms. Jacqueline Mills
AND
Mr. James Musgrove
Toronto, Ontario
The Applicant

Mr. Cesar Ramires
Building Plan Examiner
City of Toronto
For the Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Ms. Jacqueline Mills, Home Owner, 1 Jean Street, Toronto is an applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct interior alterations and a 2nd floor addition to a single family dwelling (i.e. house) at 1 Jean Street, Toronto, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a three storey detached house located 0.3 m (1 ft) from the south property line. There is a 4.6 m (15 ft) right of way adjacent to the south property line to be used only for the passage of automobiles.

The right of way is registered of the titles of both properties. The Applicant proposed that the spatial separation be extended to the south side of the right of way on the adjacent property.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) of the Building Code.

At issue is the determination of whether the limiting distance for the south wall of the building may be measured to the south side of the right of way on the adjacent property to maximize the permitted percentage of unprotected openings or glazed areas in the exterior wall.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) Exposing Building Face of Houses

(4) Where the spatial separation between dwelling units on adjoining

properties is registered on the titles of both properties, the

spatial separation may be calculated as if the dwelling units

were constructed on the same property.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the property includes a registered right of way over the adjacent property. The right of way is registered on the titles of both properties as well as other neighbouring properties.

The Applicant stated that two additional bedroom windows are proposed to be installed on the 3rd storey. Also, a window of comparable size will be removed on the 1st storey. The window to be removed is set-back further than the proposed windows.

The Applicant stated that in order for the window openings to be permitted a limiting distance of 6 ft. 7 in. is required.

The Applicant submitted that the spatial separation should extend to the south side of the right of way on the adjacent property. Although, the Applicant stated that if the limiting distance was permitted to extend to the centre line of the right of way it would permit the installation of the proposed windows.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) of the Building Code requires the limiting distance for the purposes of spatial separation to be registered on title. Titles of adjacent property and the subject property indicate the use of the right of way exclusively for access purposes and not for limiting distance or spatial separation purposes.

The Respondent stated that if the limiting distance was shifted onto the neighbouring property (i.e. right of way) it would reduce the limiting distance to the rear of their properties.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that providing a limiting distance of 7 ft. 0 in. from the south face of the building into the right of way provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.14.12.(4) of the Building Code.

  1. Reasons:

i. A dedicated 15 ft. right of way is registered on the title of the adjacent properties to the south of the subject property.

ii. Existing windows on the exposing building face of approximately equivalent size to the new proposed windows will be blocked off and therefore there will be no significant increase in the percentage of glazed openings.

Dated at Toronto, this 9th day, in the month of July, in the year 1996, for application number 1996-24.

Roy Philippe

Susan Friedrich

Demir Delen