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. 95-19-439

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-19-439

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-19-439

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 3.2.3.7. 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. Lorie Pella, Vanbots Construction Corporation for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Terry Willing, Chief Building Official, Township of Kingston, concerning sufficiency of compliance with the construction and fire resistance rating requirements for the west exposing building face at the No Frills Store, 1030 Coverdale Drive, Kingston, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Vanbots Construction Corporation
Markham, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Terry Willing
Chief Building Official
Township of Kingston

PANEL

Mr. Demir Delen, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael Lio
Mr. Sang Shim

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

April 25th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Yousef Tadros, Architect
Y.T. Architectural Services Inc.
North York, Ontario
For the Applicant

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Lorie Pella, Vanbots Construction Corporation is an applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a No Frills grocery store at 1030 Coverdale Drive, Kingston, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The proposed building is a one storey sprinklered grocery store designed in conformance with Article 3.2.2.44. of the Building Code. The building area is 3010 m².

The western portion of the proposed store is adjacent to a large storm water retention area. The limiting distance requires the west exposing building face to have a two hour fire resistance rating.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 3.2.3.7. of the Building Code. At issue is a request to shift a portion of the required limiting distance to the abutting storm water retention pond by registering an agreement on the title of both properties that limits future construction. This would eliminate the need of a fire resistance rating for the west exposing building face.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Article 3.2.3.7.: Construction of Exposing Building Face

  1. Except as permitted in Articles 3.2.3.9. and 3.2.3.10., where a limiting distance shown in Table 3.2.3.A. for a Group A, B, C, D or Group F, Division 3 occupancy classification is such as to permit an exposing building face to have unprotected openings of

    1. not more than 10 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall be of noncombustible construction having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 h and be clad with noncombustible cladding,

    1. more than 10 per cent but not more than 25 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 h and be clad with noncombustible cladding, and

    1. more than 25 per cent but less than 100 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 min.

  1. Except as permitted in Article 3.2.3.9., where a limiting distance shown in Table 3.2.3.B. for a Group E, or Group F, Division 1 or 2 occupancy classification is such as to permit an exposing building face to have unprotected openings of
  1. not more than 10 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall be of noncombustible construction having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 h and be clad with noncombustible cladding,
  2. more than 10 per cent but not more than 25 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 h, and be clad with noncombustible cladding, and
  3. more than 25 per cent but less than 100 per cent of the exposing building face, the exposing building face shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 h.

  1. In addition to the requirements of Sentences (1) and (2), where foamed plastic insulation is used in an exterior wall of a building more than 3 storeys in building height

  1. the insulation shall be protected on the exterior surface by

i. concrete or masonry not less than 25 mm (1 in) thick, or

ii. noncombustible material that will remain in place for not less than 15 min when tested in conformance with CAN4-S101-M, "Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials", or

  1. the wall assembly shall conform to Article 3.1.5.5. where the protection in Clause (a) is not provided.

5. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the property adjacent to the west face of the building will serve as a water retention pond for the No Frills Store and surrounding residential properties. The property is not intended for future development.

The Applicant submitted that the Township of Kingston municipal Council passed the following resolution on March 21, 1995:

That the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Kingston approve the request submitted by Mr. Joseph Tadros, Architect on behalf of No Frills store, 130 Coverdale Drive in order to permit a shift of the requirement for spatial separtion to the abutting storm water pond as detailed in a report of the Chief Building Official dated March 7, 1995.

The applicant has agreed to cover the cost of preparation and registration of an agreement to carry out the intent of Council's resolution.

    1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that the location of the building with respect to the property line separating the No Frills property from the storm water retention pond requires the west wall of the store to have a two hour fire resistance rating.

The Respondent submitted that the municipality has agreed to shifting a portion of the limiting distance to the abutting property and registration of an agreement on title is eminent. This would eliminate the need of a fire resistance rating for the west exposing building face.

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 Applicant. It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that shifting the limiting distance to the abutting storm water retention pond provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code requirements.

    1. Reason:

The adjacent property is owned by the Township. Council agreed to enter into an agreement to limit future construction within the shifted limiting distance area and register it on title.

Dated at Toronto, this 25th day, in the month of April, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-11.

Demir Delen

Michael Lio

Sang Shim