BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Article of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Dave de Sylva, Del Ridge Homes Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Shelly Switzer, Chief Building Official, Town of Milton, to determine whether the prefinished hardwood flooring proposed for the kitchen of a single detached residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code at 319 Malick Street, Milton, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Dave de Sylva Del Ridge Homes Inc. Markham, Ontario Shelly Switzer Chief Building Official Town of Milton Kenneth Peaker, Chair Fred Barkhouse Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING August 8, 2002 DATE OF RULING August 8, 2002 APPEARANCES Dave de Sylva Del Ridge Homes Inc. Markham, Ontario The Applicant Shelly Switzer Chief Building Official Town of Milton The Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Dave de Sylva, Del Ridge Homes Inc., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing a residential dwelling unit at 319 Malick Street, Milton, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a single detached dwelling having a Group C occupancy classification. The structure has a building area of m 2 and a building height of two storeys. The construction in dispute involves the type of finished flooring proposed for the kitchen of the dwelling. The proposed kitchen flooring will be comprised of prefinished oak planks having a factory applied urethane finish to the top of the wood strip. The sides, ends and bottom of the hardwood strips are left unfinished. Asphalt paper or wax paper is proposed for use between the hardwood product and the subfloor. The paper is designed to protect the hardwood from moisture penetration originating from beneath the subfloor and additionally, protects the subfloor should water permeate from above. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the prefinished hardwood flooring proposed for the kitchen of a single detached dwelling provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). This Article of the Code deals with water resistance and finished floor coverings. It provides a list of acceptable water resistant finished floorings for bathrooms, kitchens, public entrance halls, laundry and general storage areas. The list includes felted-synthetic-fibre floor coverings, concrete, terrazzo, ceramic tile and mastic.... It also states that other types of flooring are permitted provided that they offer a similar degree of water resistence. It is proposed in this instance that the kitchen floor in a residential dwelling be covered with a prefinished hardwood product. While not specifically listed in Article , the Applicant contends that this type of flooring will provide a similar degree of water resistence within a kitchen environment and, therefore, sufficiency of compliance with Article will be achieved. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Article Water Resistence (1) Finished flooring in bathrooms, kitchens, public entrance halls, laundry and general storage areas shall consist of resilient flooring, felted-synthetic-fibre floor coverings, concrete, terrazzo, ceramic tile, mastic or other types of flooring providing similar degrees of water resistance. (See Appendix A.)

3 -3-5. Applicant s Position The Applicant submitted that, while it is recognized that the subject application applies to only one property, the issue of hardwood floors for kitchens could have a far reaching impact. In fact, for this particular subdivision alone, a number of requests for hardwood flooring in the kitchen have been received from prospective purchasers. Other municipalities, he argued, already accept its use for this area and approve of the installation. Some, however, will permit hardwood in kitchens only if the owner signs a waiver that indemnifies the municipality, the builder and the New Home Warranty Program from any responsibility if water damage should occur. This type of waiver has been offered in this case but the municipality has chosen not to accept the proposal. In respect to the appropriateness of using hardwood flooring in the kitchen of a dwelling, the Applicant submitted that the Code provision in dispute was written out of concern for permeability of the finished flooring and prospective damage to the subfloor from water penetration. He argued that the prefinished hardwood plank being proposed for use is not a permeable material. He suggested that the only area of concern could be at the plank joints and stated that these areas are tightly connected. He argued that material such as ceramic tile was also jointed and that the masonry used in that application could shrink, letting water through to the subfloor. The key to ensuring that the flooring functions as designed is to provide quality hardwood product install as per the manufacturers specifications. The Applicant submitted that based on permeability tests conducted for the proposed prefinished hardwood, he was confident that the product would perform as desired when used in the kitchen of a detached dwelling. The factory applied finish, he submitted, would exclude water vapour. In addition, if installed as recommended by the manufacturer and by using either asphalt paper or wax paper between the hardwood flooring and the subfloor, he submitted that a similar degree of water resistance will be offered when compared to Code specified products. 6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that, as a municipal official, his mandate is to enforce the Ontario Building Code. In this respect, he argued, he had no luxury to accept the waiver or release from responsibility being offered by the Applicant. He advised the Commission that the National Building Code (NBC) would permit the type of prefinished hardwood flooring anticipated in this application however, an impermeable layer would be required between the subfloor and installed product. He further submitted that, if the Commission were to rule in favour of allowing hardwood flooring in kitchens, he would be more comfortable accepting the ruling if a similar condition were imposed in respect to installation. In summation, the Respondent submitted that in his interpretation of Article , hardwood flooring is not a permitted material for installation in the kitchen of a residential dwelling. He, therefore, looks to the Commission for a ruling on whether the flooring will achieve sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of the OBC. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed prefinished hardwood flooring in the kitchen of a single detached residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code 319 Malick Street, Milton, Ontario, on condition that:

4 -4- a) The product must be supplied with a urethane finish having a minimum of seven (7) coats applied under factory conditions. b) The flooring must be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. 8. Reasons i) This application is restricted to the kitchen only of a Group C residential dwelling constructed under Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code. The use of prefinished hardwood flooring in bathrooms, laundry areas, etc., where the incidence of standing water may be more frequent, has not been considered. ii) When considering the conditions imposed in this decision, the type of flooring anticipated for use in the kitchen, will provide a similar degree of water resistence as that anticipated by Article

5 Dated at Toronto this 8 th day in the month of August in the year 2002 for application number Kenneth Peaker, Chair Fred Barkhouse Donald Pratt