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. 95-16-436

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-16-436

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-16-436

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Clause 3.2.9.1.(1)(a) and Sentence 3.2.9.4.(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. Denny Cybalski, Cyden Investments Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Anthony Krimmer, Chief Building Official, City of Waterloo, concerning whether a standpipe and hose system is required for the retail units at 255 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Cyden Investments Inc.
Waterloo, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Anthony Krimmer
Chief Building Official
City of Waterloo

PANEL

Mr. Demir Delen, Panel Chair
Mr. Remus Tsang
Mr. Rick Florio

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

April 11th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Andrew M. Bousfield, Principal
Andrew Bousfield Architects
Suite 422
77 Mowat Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
For the Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Denny Cybalski, Cyden Investment Inc. is an applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a four storey building for office and retail use at 255 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a four storey building designed for restaurant, office and retail use. The first storey is designed for restaurant and retail use while the upper three storeys are to be used for offices.

The building faces 3 streets and is fully sprinklered. The subject ground floor area is 1022 m². There are two fire hose cabinets on the ground floor level.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Clause 3.2.9.1.(1)(a) and Sentence 3.2.9.4.(1) of the Building Code. At issue is whether additional fire hose cabinets are required to protect the ground floor retail units.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Clause 3.2.9.1.(1)(a): Standpipe and Hose Systems

  1. Except as provided in Article 3.2.9.2., a standpipe and hose system shall be installed in every building that

    1. is more than

i. 3 storeys in building height, or

ii. 14 m in height measured between grade and the ceiling of the uppermost storey,

Sentence 3.2.9.4.(1): Hose Stations and Cabinets

  1. Hose stations shall be located

    1. so that every portion of the building can be reached by a hose stream and is within 3 m (9 ft 10 in) of a nozzle attached to not more than 30 m (98 ft 5 in) of hose,

    1. not more than 5 m (16 ft 5 in) from every required exit serving a floor area, except

i. for the first storey, or

ii. where additional hose stations are required to achieve full coverage of the floor area, and

    1. in a conspicuous location where they are not likely to be obstructed.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant stated that the ground floor area is provided with two fire hose cabinets.

The Applicant submitted that the ground floor retail units in question are provided with adequate provision for fire fighting without the need for additional fire hose cabinets due to the following:

i. The building is fully sprinklered.

ii. The building is provided with a fire alarm system.

iii. The ground floor is directly accessible by a fire route that conforms to Clauses 3.2.5.6.(2)(b)&(c) of the Building Code.

iv. The building is located within 1 kilometre of a constantly attended fire hall.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that fire hose cabinets are required in conformance with Subsection 3.2.9. of the Building Code.

The Respondent submitted that the second, third and fourth floors are protected by the required number of fire hose cabinets. The owner does not wish to provide additional fire hose cabinets that are accessible by each suite on the first floor retail level.

  1. Commission Ruling:

In favour of the Applicant. It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that not providing additional fire hose cabinets on the ground floor provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

  1. Reasons:

    1. The building is fully sprinklered.

    1. Only a portion of the ground floor is not reachable by a 30 m fire hose from the hose stations.

    1. Each retail unit has direct access from the exterior for firefighting capabilities.

    1. The ground floor is highly compartmentalized and separated from the floor above by a 2 hour rated fire separation.

    1. The area affected is very small compared to unsprinklered allowable areas identified in Table 3.2.9.A.

Dated at Toronto, this 11th day, in the month of April, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-12.

Demir Delen

Remus Tsang

Rick Florio