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. 95-42-462

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-42-462

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-42-462

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 3.2.2.44. of Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93, 160/93 and 383/94 and 20/95 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Jim Vecia, Roseland Foods for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Dan Mousseau, Chief Building Official, City of Burlington concerning whether not providing a sprinkler system for the addition to one of 6 units in an existing unsprinklered mercantile strip plaza will provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.2.44. of the Ontario Building Code, at Roseland Foods, 3015 New St., Burlington, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Jim Vecia, Owner
Roseland Foods

RESPONDENT

Mr. Dan Mousseau
Chief Building Official
City of Burlington

PANEL

Roy Philippe, Chair
Michael Lio
Michael Steele

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

September 19, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Nick DeFilippis, President
DeFilippis Design
For the Applicant

Mr. Donald Intini
Building Technologist
City of Burlington
The Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Jim Vecia, Roseland Foods is the holder of a permit under the Building Code Act,1992 to construct a 81 m² (871.9 ft²) addition to a 507.1 m² (5458.6 ft²) suite in an existing strip plaza at, Roseland Foods, 3015 New St., Burlington, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a one storey unsprinklered combustible mercantile strip plaza that contains 6 suites located between two existing fire walls.

The building area (i.e. between existing firewalls) is 1710 m² (18406.9 ft²). The construction of an unsprinklered 81 m² (871.9 ft²) storage addition is proposed for the 507.1 m² (5458.6 ft²) Roseland Foods suite.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical interpretation of Article 3.2.2.44. of the Building Code. At issue is whether not providing a sprinkler system for the addition to one of 6 units in an existing unsprinklered mercantile strip plaza will provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.2.44. of the Ontario Building Code

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Article 3.2.2.44. Mercantile Buildings, up to 3 Storeys

  1. A building classified as Group E shall conform to Sentence (2) provided the building

    1. is not more than 3 storeys in building height, and
    2. has a building area not more than the value in Table 3.2.2.M.

  1. The building shall be of combustible or noncombustible construction used either singly or in combination, and

  1. floor assemblies shall be fire separations with a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min,
  2. mezzanines shall have, if of combustible construction, a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min,
  3. roof assemblies shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 45 min,except that in buildings not more than 1 storey in building height, the fire-resistance rating is permitted to be waived provided the roof assembly is of noncombustible construction or is constructed as a fire-retardant treated wood roof system conforming to Article 3.1.14.1., and

i. if unsprinklered, the building area is not more than 1 500 m² (16,100 ft²), and

ii. if sprinklered, the building area is not more than

2 400 m² (25,800 ft²) if facing 1 street,

3 000 m² (32,300 ft²) if facing 2 streets, or

3 600 m² (38,800 ft²) if facing 3 streets,

  1. all loadbearing walls, columns and arches supporting an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min or shall be of noncombustible construction, except that such

members and assemblies supporting a fire separation shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that required for supported assembly.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the requirements to sprinkler the new proposed addition are excessive and should not be required since the existing building construction does not conform to Article 3.2.2.44. of the Building Code.

The Applicant also submitted that creating a smaller building area by constructing a firewall between the existing suite (i.e. Roseland Foods) and the proposed addition is not feasible.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that the Building Code requirement for a sprinkler system is quite clear. Also, the Building Code does not provide any exception to the requirements for a sprinkler system in this case.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that not providing a sprinkler system in the addition to one of six units in the existing unsprinklered mercantile strip plaza will provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.2.44. of the Building Code provided that the addition is separated from the existing building by a 2 hour fire separation.

  1. Reasons:

1. The addition is only 81 m² or approx. 5% of the building area.

2. Access is provided for fire-fighting purposes to 2 faces of the building.

3. Existing occupancies are separated by 200 mm (8") concrete block party walls.

Dated at Toronto, this 19th day, in the month of September, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-40.

Roy Philippe

Michael Lio

Michael Steele