Ruling No. 00-58-790 Application No. 2000-72 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 9.8.3.3., 9.8.4.1. and 9.9.3.2. of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99 and 205/00 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Bruno G. Schickedanz, B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc., Woodbridge, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, Ontario, to determine whether the as-built exterior concrete stairs and landings, having widths ranging from 814 mm to 850 mm, provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.3.3., 9.8.4.1. and 9.9.3.2. of the Ontario Building Code at Units 9 and 10 Charlton Settlement Avenue, and Units 13, 15 and 17 Rivers Edge Drive the Riverboat Landing development, 1400 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Mr. Bruno G. Schickedanz B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc. Woodbridge, Ontario Mr. Yaman Uzumeri Chief Building Official City of Toronto Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair Mr. Fred Barkhouse Mr. Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 30 th, 2000 DATE OF RULING November 30 th, 2000 APPEARANCES Mr. Alex Talwood Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Mr. Jim Laughlin Manager, Field Office City of Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
-2- RULING 1. The Applicant Mr. Bruno G. Schickedanz, B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc., Woodbridge, Ontario, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, 1992 to rectify certain alleged deficiencies in respect to the construction of a townhouse complex known as Riverboat Landing, Charlton Settlement Avenue and Rivers Edge Drive, 1400 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a townhouse complex consisting of 43 townhomes arranged in 7 blocks. The buildings have a Group C occupancy classification, a building area of less than 600 m 2 and are three storey in building height. Throughout the townhouse blocks are five units subject to this dispute. These are identified as Units 9 and 10, fronting onto Charlton Settlement Avenue and Units 13, 15 and 17, fronting onto Rivers Edge Drive. The units are called the Simcoe and York models and have floorareas of 111.48 m 2 (1,200 ft 2 ) and 104.05 m 2 (1,120 ft 2 ) respectively. All of the buildings are comprised of combustible construction. The construction in dispute involves the width of the exterior covered concrete stairs and landings which form part of the required exit from each of the subject units. The front entrance to each unit is located approximately 1,371 mm (4 ft 6 in) to 1,524 mm (5 ft) above grade and is recessed behind the front wall face of the subject dwelling. The widths of the front stairs and landings range from 814 mm (Unit 15) to 850 mm (Units 10 and 13) when measured between the adjacent wall faces. The front door to each of the units measures 790 mm (31 in) in width. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-built concrete stairs and landings at the front of the subject units provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles9.8.3.3., 9.8.4.1. and 9.9.3.2. of the Ontario Building Code. Sentence (1) of Article 9.8.3.3. requires a minimum width for exit stairs, when measured between wall faces or guards, of 900 mm (2 ft 11 in). In the case at hand, the as-built stairs form part of a required exit from the dwelling units in question and as a result, the 900 mm minimum width requirement applies. The stair widths, however, measure between 814 mm (32 in) and 850 mm (33 ½ in) rather than the required 900 mm. Further, Article 9.8.4.1. requires that landings shall be at least as wide and as long as the width of the stairs in which they occur. This article continues by providing certain exemptions for that length of some landings, however, it offers no relief for the width requirement (i.e., must be the same as stairs) of landings. In this instance, while the landings are generally the same width as the stairs in which they occur, like the stairs, they do not meet the minimum 900 mm width requirement. Article 9.9.3.2. further prescribes the widths of required exits, mandating that (except for doors and corridors) the width of every exit facility shall be not less than 900 mm. As already noted, the as-built stairs and landings, with measurements between 814 mm and 850 mm, do not meet this minimum standard.
-3-4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Article 9.8.3.3. Stair Width (1) Exit stairs and stairs used by the public shall have a width, measured between wall faces or guards, of not less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in). (2) At least 1 stairway between each floor level in a dwelling unit shall have a width between wall faces of not less than 860 mm (2 ft 10 in). Article 9.8.4.1. Dimensions of Landings (1) Landings shall be at least as wide and as long as the width of stairs in which they occur, except that (a) the length of landing for exterior stairs serving not more than 1 dwelling unit need not exceed 900 mm (2 ft 11 in), and (b) the length of landing for all other stairs in a straight run need not exceed 1 100 mm (3 ft 7 in). (See also Articles 9.9.6.2. and 9.9.6.6. for landings in exits.) Article 9.9.3.2. Exit Width (1) Except for doors and corridors, the width of every exit facility shall be not less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in). (See Article 9.9.6.4. for doors and Subsection 9.8.3. for stairs.) 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by providing the Commission with some background information, explaining that construction of the townhomes commenced in the fall of 1999. The issue of noncompliance was discovered in late winter or early spring of 2000, when an order to comply was issued by the City. At this point, he argued, it was too late to halt construction and alter the design to comply with the OBC. He advised that the townhomes are now built and occupied. In his opinion, safety is not reduced because of the differential in stair and landing widths. He noted that the as-built condition is only slightly less than the minimum requirement. The Agent stated that his client did not intentionally construct the stairs and landings to be noncompliant with the OBC requirements. He indicated that, the problem occurred as a result of a construction error. Specifically, it appeared that the landings were built without taking into consideration the thickness of the masonry veneer used on the lower portion of the townhouses. In effect, the masonry veneer thereby narrowed the landing areas and the stairs were subsequently built to the same narrowed width as the landings. The Agent then argued that the stair and landing widths are greater than the width of the associated doors and, as such, it is his opinion that if a person can pass through the wooden door frame, they are also able to pass through the landing area. In addition, he submitted that more than the required number of exits have been provided within each unit. An occupant, he argued, has the option of exiting from the front door, the rear door or any one of the operable casement windows on the second and third floors. In addition, many of the units have access to the garage from the interior of the dwelling.
-4- In summation, the Agent submitted that the Code violation in this instance was a genuine mistake. The stairs and landings were constructed unintentionally narrow and given the extenuating circumstances involved, rectifying the situation would have been difficult at the time the order to comply was issued. The Agent again emphasized that additional means of egress from the buildings had been provided, stating that safety would not be compromised in this instance. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that a permit had not been issued for this development at the time construction commenced. The permit plans, however, indicated landings and stairs which would have been wide enough to satisfy the OBC requirements. In his opinion, it was not too late to remedy the situation at the time the order was issued. There were alternatives available to the Applicant that were not pursued. In fact, stucco was used on the wall face of one of the units that was identified prior to finished construction. Using a similar material here may have resolved the dispute involving the units in question. The Designate argued, because this is a means of egress, the narrow landings and stairways pose a real problem and may jeopardize the safety of the occupants of the subject units. This access point, being the front door to the dwelling, he submitted, is the most frequently used entrance/exit and is logically the route for safety first thought of in an emergency situation. In addition he disputed the Applicant s claim with respect to the number of available egress routes. He argued that one may not reasonably be expected to jump out of a second or third storey window and, in any event, it should not be considered as a route that would contribute to the safe evacuation of the dwelling. In summation, the Designate argued that the stairs and landings in question are considered to be part of the required exit. In addition, the front door of the dwellings would likely be selected as the main exit by the occupants of the units in an emergency. It is important that the minimum provisions of the Building Code be complied with in this respect. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-built exterior concrete exit stairs and landings, having widths ranging from 814 mm to 850 mm, do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.3.3., 9.8.4.1., 9.9.3.2. and of the Ontario Building Code at Units 9 and 10 Charleton Settlement Avenue and Units 13, 15 and 17 Rivers Edge Drive, 1400 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) The as-built stairs and landings do not meet the minimum standards set out in the Building Code, nor have any acceptable compensating measures been offered in lieu of compliance. ii) There were, and continue to be, viable options available to the Applicant enabling him to comply with the minimum standard outlined in the OBC.
-5- Dated at Toronto this 30 th, day in the month of November in the year 2000 for application number 2000-72. Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair Mr. Fred Barkhouse Mr. Donald Pratt