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. 96-42-525

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-42-525

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-42-525

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) and Article 9.10.14.5. 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. Robert Root, Owner, Peterborough, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Jeff Chalmers, Chief Building Official, City of Peterborough, concerning whether the windows that result from the conversion of a second floor balcony to a sunroom addition provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) and Article 9.10.14.5. of the Ontario Building Code at 426 Park Street North, Peterborough, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Robert Root
Owner
426 Park Street North
Peterborough, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Jeff Chalmers
Chief Building Official
City of Peterborough

PANEL

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

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

October 31st, 1996

APPEARANCES

Mr. Robert Root
Peterborough, Ontario
The Applicant

Ken Guthrie, Building Inspector
City of Peterborough
Agent for the Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Robert Root, Owner, is a holder of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a sunroom addition to a single family dwelling (i.e. house) at 426 Park Street North, Peterborough, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a 2 storey home, and the proposed construction is the addition of a sunroom enclosure on the top of an existing second storey balcony.

The windows in the subject exposing building face are approximately 18 ft² in area.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) and Article 9.10.14.5. of the Building Code. At issue is whether the windows in the proposed conversion of a second floor balcony to a sunroom addition may be permitted at a limiting distance of 0.96m from the property line, as opposed to the required 1.2 m.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) Exposing Building Face of Houses

"Glazed areas in the exposing building face referred to in sentence (1) shall not be permitted if the limiting distance is less than 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) and shall be limited in conformance with the requirements for glazed areas in Table 9.10.14.A. where the limiting distance is 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) or greater."

Article 9.10.14.5. Openings in Walls Having a Limiting Distance Less than 1.2 m

"Openings in a wall having a limiting distance of less than 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) shall be protected by closures, of other than wired glass or glass block, whose fire protection rating is in conformance with fire-resistance rating required for the wall. (See Table 9.10.13.A.)"

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the intent of Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) & Article 9.10.14.5. of the Building Code can be accommodated because: there is a driveway and lawn between the adjacent buildings; the nature of the building and lot makes it unlikely that additions will occur on the adjacent property; and the proposed limiting distance is very close to the required 1.2 m.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that the proposed construction does not comply with Article 9.10.14.1 and Table 9.10.14.A. which do not permit unprotected openings and that the openings would be permitted if they were protected with closures in accordance with the Building Code.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the window opening of approximately 18 sq.ft. provides sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of Sentence 9.10.14.12.(3) of the Building Code on the provision that the existing windows in the basement area in the exposed building face are closed by material having a 3/4 hour fire resistance rating.

  1. Reasons:

The Building Code allows transfer of existing areas of unprotected openings on the same exposing building face to be closed and transferred as permitted in Part 11 of the Building Code.

Dated at Toronto, this 31st day, in the month of October, in the year 1996, for application number 1996-49.

Roy Philippe

Demir Delen

Susan Friedrich