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. 95-27-447

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-27-447

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-27-447

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 3.2.3. and 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 and 355/94 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Arnold Kimmel, Owner, Kareeka Holdings Ltd. for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Andre St. Amour, Chief Building Official, City of Cornwall, concerning whether the area of unprotected openings in the north exposing building face of the new Speedy Muffler King building shows sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, at 708 Fourteenth Street West, Cornwall, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Kareeka Holdings Ltd.
Ottawa, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Andre St. Amour
Chief Building Official
City of Cornwall

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair
Ms. Lesia Beznaczuk
Mr. Remus Tsang

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

May 30th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Arnold Kimmel, Owner
Kareeka Holdings Ltd.
Cornwall, Ontario
For the Applicant

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Arnold Kimmel, Owner, Kareeka Holdings Ltd. is the holder of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a new Speedy Muffler King building, at 708 Fourteenth Street West, Cornwall, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The proposed building is a Speedy Muffler King shop (Group F, Division 2), the north face of which is set back 8.37 m from the property line. The allowable percentage of unprotected openings in the north exposing building face is 22% whereas the actual percentage is calculated to be 29%. The exposing building face is constructed of masonry and allegedly complies with the fire-resistance rating requirements for spatial separation.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Subsection 3.2.3. and Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code. At issue is whether the area of unprotected openings for the north exposing building face of the new Speedy Muffler King building shows sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Subsection 3.2.3. Spatial Separation and Exposure Protection of Buildings

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.(Sentence 3.2.3.2.(1).)

  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.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the subject building is a muffler repair shop. The large service bay doors result in the percentage of openings in the north exposing building face that is relatively high. The Applicant submitted that the exposing face is constructed of masonry and complies with requirements for fire resistance rating, but the maximum permitted area of unprotected openings is 22% as opposed to an actual area of 29%. The Applicant requested relief from the Building Code with respect to the additional 7% area of unprotected openings. The building is set back 8.37 m from the property line and approximately 50 m to an adjacent hotel.

The Applicant submitted that if his application is rejected, a fire-rated shutter will be provided to the exterior of the building to close off one of the standard doors. This will in effect reduce the area of unprotected openings to less than 22% of the exposing building face.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that the building drawings indicated that the north exposing building face contains unprotected openings in excess of 22%. This is the maximum allowed in Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code. Therefore, the proposed 29% of unprotected openings in north exposing building face does not comply with the Building Code.

The Respondent does not have the authority to permit a condition that deviates from the Building Code and the use of equivalents regulated by Section 2.7 is not applicable.

  1. Commission Ruling:

In favour of the Respondent. It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the unprotected openings in the north building face do not comply with the requirements of Subsection 3.2.3 and Article 3.2.3.1. of the Building Code.

  1. Reasons:

Aggregate area of unprotected openings in the north face (29%) exceeds the percentage allowed by Table 3.2.3.B. of the Building Code.

Dated at Toronto, this 30th day, in the month of May, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-17.

Roy Philippe

Lesia Beznaczuk

Remus Tsang