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. 95-13-433

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-13-433

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-13-433

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Article 3.3.5.7. 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. Ross Smith, AON Builders Inc. for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. A. Jeffrey Chalmers, Chief Building Official, City of Peterborough, concerning whether the construction between the garages and the dwelling units may conform to Sentence 9.10.9.16.(3) of the Building Code instead of the required 1.5 hour fire separation at River Park Village Condominiums, 1121 Armour Road, Peterborough, Ontario.

APPLICANT

AON Builders Inc.
Peterborough, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. A. Jeffrey Chalmers
Chief Building Official
City of Peterborough

PANEL

Mr. Demir Delen, Panel Chair
Mr. Remus Tsang
Mr. Kenneth Bacon

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

April 6th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. William P. Lett, Architect
Lett/Smith Architects
Toronto, Ontario
For the Applicant

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Ross Smith, AON Builders Inc. is the holder of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct six multi residential condominium townhouse buildings at River Park Village Condominiums, 1121 Armour Road, Peterborough, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The River Park Village Condominiums is a multi residential townhouse project comprising six buildings. The project includes two 6 unit rowhouses, three 7 unit rowhouses and one 8 unit rowhouse. The buildings range in building area from 1100 m² to 1492 m².

Each dwelling unit is served by it's own two car garage. There is no dwelling unit above another dwelling unit.

The building is designed to conform to the requirements of Article 3.2.2.34. of the Building Code. This permits the building to be combustible construction and unsprinklered, provided the building area does not exceed 1800 m². All six buildings fall within this limit.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical interpretation of Article 3.3.5.7. of the Building Code. At issue is whether the construction between the garages and the dwelling units may conform to Sentence 9.10.9.16.(3) of the Building Code instead of the required 1.5 hour fire separation.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

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.

  1. Applicant's Position

The applicant submitted that Article 3.3.5.7. of the Building Code was written for the purposes of multi-car parking garages. In this case each dwelling unit is served by it's own garage. Overall conditions are similar to the provisions on Part 9 (i.e. Article 9.10.9.16. and 9.10.13.15.).

During the hearing the applicant indicated that he would provide a fire separation with a 1 hour fire resistance rating between each individual garage and the dwelling unit.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The respondent submitted that the buildings are regulated by Part 3 of the Building Code. Accordingly, Article 3.3.5.7. applies.

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 providing a fire separation with 1 hour fire resistance rating between each garage and the attached dwelling unit provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.3.5.7. of the Building Code.

  1. Reason:

The layout and construction of the blocks of townhouses lend themselves more to the application of Part 9 of the Building Code. However their building areas were substantially larger than Part 9 limits.

Dated at Toronto, this 6th day, in the month of April, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-13.

Demir Delen

Remus Tsang

Kenneth Bacon