Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1994 > BCC Ruling No. 94-20-398

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 94-20-398

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #94-19-398

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Clause 3.2.9.1.(1)(b) and Table 3.2.9.A. of Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93 and 160/93 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by M-Con Products Inc. for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Robert Moore, Chief Building Official, Township of West Carleton.

APPLICANT

M-Con Products Inc.

RESPONDENT

Mr. Robert Moore
Chief Building Official
Township of West Carleton

PANEL

Sarah Maman, Chair
Rick Florio
David Lam

DATE OF RULING

July 21st, 1994

APPEARANCES

Mr. Kevin Wheaton
J. Stuart Hall & Associates Ltd.

RULING

  1. The Applicant

M-Con Products Inc. is an applicant for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct an addition to a precast concrete plant at 2150 Richardson Side Road, Carp, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The applicant is proposing to construct a 890 m? (9,581 ft?) addition to an existing 3058 m? (32,917 ft?) precast concrete plant.

The existing building is a single storey structure of combustible and non combustible construction. The building is classified as a Group F, Division 3 (F-3) major occupancy. It is not sprinklered and faces 3 streets. There is no municipal water supply to the site.

Documentation provided by the Chief Building Official indicates the building was erected in three phases:

  • 1988 Phase 1 1943 m²
    Phase 2 515 m²

Phase 3 600 m²

  • 1994 Phase 4 (proposed) 890 m²

Total 3948 m²

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with Clause 3.2.9.1.(1)(b) and Table 3.2.9.A. of the Building Code. At issue is the requirement to provide a standpipe and hose system in the proposed addition. Table 3.2.9.A. which forms part of Sentence 3.2.9.1.(1) requires a standpipe and hose system for one storey F-3 occupancies over 3000 m?.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 3.2.9.1.(1) Requirement for Standpipe and Hose Systems

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,

  1. is greater in building area than the area shown in Table 3.2.9.A. for the applicable building height shown in the Table where the building

i. is not sprinklered, and

ii. is not more than 14 m high measured between grade and the ceiling of the top storey, or

  1. contains more than one storey below grade.

Table 3.2.9.A.

  1. Applicant's Position

The applicant stated that the level of safety required by the Building Code is met without the provision of a standpipe and hose system for the following reasons:

  1. The building is a precast concrete plant with minimal combustible load;
  2. Construction is non-combustible;
  3. The owner does not intend to increase the number of workers in the building;
  4. The maximum travel distances in the existing building and the addition comply with the Building Code;
  5. The building is visited annually by a fire inspector;
  6. The shop floor and the mezzanine are provided with fire extinguishers as per the Building Code. The extinguishers are checked two or three times each year.
  7. The building is one storey in height, as the mezzanine complies with Sentence 3.2.1.1.(4) of the Building Code.
  8. The Building Official agrees that the proposal is reasonable.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The respondent stated the provision of fire extinguishers does not provide an alternative means of fire suppression. Fire extinguishers are required by Article 3.2.5.17. of the Building Code regardless of whether a standpipe and hose system is provided. Furthermore, Sentence 3.2.9.4.(7) requires a listed fire extinguisher to be located in each hose cabinet.

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

  1. Commission Ruling:

In favour of the Applicant. It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that not providing a standpipe and hose system shows sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code provided:

  1. Double the required number of fire extinguishers is provided in the new addition; and,
  2. All plant personnel are trained in the proper use of fire extinguishers and a refresher course is given annually.

  1. Reasons:

1. The building is of noncombustible construction occupied by a precast products manufacturer where the fire load is low.

2. The building is situated in a rural area with no water supply. It is standard procedure for the fire department to respond to a fire with their own water supply.

Dated at Toronto, this 21st day, in the month of July, in the year 1994, for application number 1994-21.

Sarah Maman

Rick Florio

David Lam