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. 96-06-489

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-06-489

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-06-489

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 1.1.3.2. for the definition of a storage garage, Article 3.3.5.7. and Sentence 3.3.5.5.(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 John Colussi and Associates Ltd., Concord, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Mani Navabi, Chief Building Official, City of Vaughan, concerning whether a building used to renovate mobile homes and trailers (i.e. install upholstery, plumbing, air conditioning, beds, seats, tables, etc.) must comply with the storage garage requirements in Article 3.3.5.7. and Sentence 3.3.5.5.(4) of the Building Code, at Westdale Enterprises, 351 Spinnaker Way, Unit No. 1, Concord, Ontario.

APPLICANT

John Colussi and Associates Ltd.
Concord, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Mani Navabi
Chief Building Official
City of Vaughan

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe
Mr. Demir Delen
Mr. Remus Tsang

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

February 13th, 1996

APPEARANCES

Mr. John Colussi
John Colussi and Associates Ltd.
The Applicant

Mr. Clark Sheridan
AND
Ms. Maggie Sheridan
Westdale Enterprises

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

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. John Colussi, John Colussi and Associates Ltd. is an applicant for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct interior partitions, offices and washrooms at Westdale Enterprises, 351 Spinnaker Way, Unit No. 1, Concord, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a fully sprinklered single storey structure facing two streets. It has a building area of 2,880 m? and contains four units. The building is classified as a Medium Hazard Industrial Occupancy (i.e. Group F, Division 2) under Article 3.2.2.51. of the Building Code.

The Applicant occupies one of the four units (i.e. 1394 m?) in the building. The Applicant proposes to construct interior partitions, offices and washrooms.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 1.1.3.2. for the definition of a storage garage, Article 3.3.5.7. and Sentence 3.3.5.5.(4) of the Building Code. At issue is whether a building used to renovate mobile homes and trailers must comply with the fire separation and ventilation requirements for storage garages.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Article 1.1.3.2.Article 1.1.3.2. Definition of Storage Garages

Storage garage means a building or part there of intended for the torage or parking of motor vehicles and which contains no provision for the repair or servicing of such vehicles.

Article 3.3.5.7. Storage Garage Separation

A storage garage shall be separated from other occupancies by a fire separation with a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1.5 h

Sentence 3.3.5.5.(4) Repair and Storage Garages

Every garage shall be provided with natural or mechanical ventilation in conformance with the requirements of Subsection 6.2.2. to prevent excessive accumulation of carbon monoxide, exhaust fumes or flammable and toxic vapours.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the use of the facility is to renovate mobile homes and trailers. The nature of the work is limited to the installation of upholstery, plumbing, air conditioning, and beds, seats and tables.

The Applicant submitted that there is absolutely no mechanical repairs done on the mobile homes or trailers, nor any type of painting. The Applicant submitted that the motor homes are driven in and parked. The majority of the motor homes do not have engines in them, they are totally stripped elsewhere and brought to this location for refurbishment.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that a 1 1/2 hour fire separation is required between the office and the showroom in accordance with Article 3.3.5.7. of the Building Code. Furthermore, a mechanical ventilation system in accordance with Sentences 6.2.2.3.(1) and (4) is required in the storage garage. Sentence 6.2.2.3.(4) may not be applicable if the applicant can prove that the vehicles are not parked by mechanical means.

The Respondent submitted that since the operator of the business is not repairing any mechanical systems on the vehicles, the space was considered to be a storage garage rather than a repair garage.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the classification of the intended occupancy is Group F, Division 2 (i.e. Medium Hazard Industrial Occupancy), but by nature of the infrequent operation or movement of mobile homes is not considered as a storage nor repair garage and the requirements of Articles 3.3.5.7. and 3.3.5.5. of the Building Code do not apply.

  1. Reasons:

i. No mechanical repair or servicing is performed on the mobile homes.

ii. No painting or body work will be carried out.

iii. Movement of mobile homes in or out of the premises is very infrequent in the order of 2 to 3 per week and batteries are normally disconnected.

iv. The occupant load is extremely low and by nature of the restoration time for the mobile homes a limited number of the public are present at any time.

Dated at Toronto, this 13th day, in the month of February, in the year 1996, for application number 1996-05.

Roy Philippe

Demir Delen

Remus Tsang