Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1995 > BCC Ruling No. 95-47-467

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-47-467

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-47-467

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 3.2.3.1. of the Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93, 160/93, 355/94 and 20/95 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Louis Aldrovandi, President, Aldrovandi Equipment Limited for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Mani Navabi, Chief Building Official, City of Vaughan, concerning whether a canopy structure over a parking lot at the rear of an existing industrial building can be considered a covered vehicle passageway under Article 3.2.3.19. and not be subjected to the spatial separation requirements in Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code, at Aldrovandi Equipment Limited, 191 Vinyl Court, Vaughan, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Louis Aldrovandi, President
Aldrovandi Equipment Ltd.
Woodbridge, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Mani Navabi
Chief Building Official
City of Vaughan

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair
Ms. Susan Friedrich
Mr. Remus Tsang

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

October 19th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Brian Atkins, Principal
Atkins Architect
Thornhill, Ontario
For the Applicant

Mr. Steven Penna
Technical Supervisor
AND
Mr. Davis Chiang
Plans Examiner
City of Vaughan
For the Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Louis Aldrovandi, President, Aldrovandi Equipment Ltd. is the applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 for a canopy structure over a parking lot at the rear of an existing industrial building.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building addition is a canopy structure (i.e. roof but no enclosing walls) covering an area of 1055 m² at rear of an existing industrial building.

The structure abuts the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) main line right of way and is 2.12 m from the property line.

The Applicant contends that the structure is considered a covered vehicle passageway under Article 3.2.3.19. of the Building Code.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code. At issue is whether a canopy structure over a parking lot at the rear of an existing industrial building can be considered a covered vehicle passageway under Article 3.2.3.19. and not be subjected to the spatial separation requirements in Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code, at Aldrovandi Equipment Ltd., 191 Vinyl Court, Vaughan, Ontario.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Article 3.2.3.1. Limiting Distance and Area of Unprotected Openings

  1. Except as provided in Articles 3.2.3.9. to 3.2.3.11, the area of unprotected openings shall not be more than that set forth in Tables 3.2.3.A. or 3.2.3.B. for the limiting distance applicable to the exposing building face under consideration.

  1. The area of the unprotected openings in an exposing building face shall be the aggregate area of unprotected openings expressed as a percentage of the area of the exposing building face in Tables 3.2.3.A. and 3.2.3.B.

  1. For the purposes of determining the type of construction and cladding and the fire-resistance rating of an exterior wall, the exposing building face shall be taken as the projection of the exterior wall onto a vertical plane located so that no portion of the exterior wall of the building or of a fire compartment, if the fire compartment complies with the requirements of Sentence 3.2.3.2.(1), is between the vertical plane and the line to which the limiting distance is measured and, for these purposes, the area of unprotected openings shall be determined from Table 3.2.3.A. or Table 3.2.3.B.

  1. For the purposes of determining the actual percentage of unprotected openings permitted in an exterior wall, the location of the exposing building face is permitted to be taken at a vertical plane located so that there are no unprotected openings between the vertical plane and the line to which the limiting distance is measured.

  1. Where fire fighting facilities cannot reach the building within 10 min of the alarm being received, the limiting distance shall be doubled.

Article 3.2.3.19. Covered Vehicular Passageway

  1. A covered vehicular passageway shall

    1. be of noncombustible construction when constructed below grade, and
    2. be separated from every building or part of a building adjoining it by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1.5 h where it is designed as a receiving or shipping area.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the structure is a covered vehicle passageway under Article 3.2.3.19. of the Building Code and therefore is not subject to the spatial separation requirements in Article 3.2.3.1.

The Applicant submitted that the structure abuts a main line CPR railway right of way and is 2.12 m from the property line.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that Article 3.2.3.19. (i.e. Covered Vehicular Passageway) of the Building Code does not waive the requirement for an exterior spatial separation and exposure protection for the building.

The Respondent also submitted that a railway right of way is not considered a "street" by definition in Subsection 1.1.3. (i.e. Definitions of Words and Phrases) of the Building Code.

The Respondent submitted that the Committee of Adjustment the minimum rear yard setback of 2.12 m subject to the following conditions:

i. That the variance be site specific to the existing canopy and that the canopy not be enclosed to the satisfaction of the Building Standards Department; and,

ii. That if a Building Permit is not issued, based upon the decision of the Committee of Adjustment within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed canopy structure provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.3.19 and 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code provided that

  1. it is separated from the existing building by a fire separation having 1? hour fire resistance rating
  2. no enclosing wall on the south face
  3. space to be used for vehicular storage only.

  1. Reasons:

    1. The existing building is separated by a wall having a 1? hour fire resistance rating.

    1. The area is used only for vehicular storage.

    1. There is no proposed exposing building wall and the area is unenclosed on three faces.

Dated at Toronto, this 19th day, in the month of October, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-48.

Roy Philippe

Susan Friedrich

Remus Tsang