Application No. 2004-73
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 3.1.10.5. of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by John McIntyre, Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd., for resolution of a dispute with Shelly Switzer, Chief Building Official, Town of Oakville, to determine whether the size and positioning of openings in the as-constructed firewalls provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.10.5. of the Building Code at the Clearview Christian Reformed Church, 2300 Sheridan Garden Drive, Oakville, Ontario.
APPLICANT John McIntyre
Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd. RESPONDENT Shelly Switzer
Chief Building Official
Town of Oakville
PANEL Tony Chow, Chair
Donald Pratt
Michael Steele
PLACE Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING January 13, 2005 DATE OF RULING January 19, 2005
APPEARANCES Walter Miller, Consulting Engineer Arencon Inc.
Agent for the Applicant
Shelly Switzer,
Chief Building Official Town of Oakville The Respondent
RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, and has
constructed an assembly occupancy building referred to as the Clearview Christian Reformed Church at 2300 Sheridan Garden Drive, Oakville, Ontario.
The subject structure is a 1 storey, Group A, Division 2 major occupancy building, comprised of combustible construction. The structure has been subdivided into three separate “buildings” by firewalls having a 2 hour fire resistance rating. Buildings A (the sanctuary), B (offices) and C (fellowship hall) have areas of 1,483.4 m2, 397.3 m2 and 941.5 m2 respectively. The entire facility is equipped with a fire alarm system.
The construction in dispute involves the openings that penetrate the two firewalls that subdivide the structure. The subject firewalls are penetrated by several openings including doors, ducts and a “pass-through” window. Each opening in the firewall is protected with a 90 minute rated closure (door, shutter or fire damper). Where mechanical ducts penetrate the firewalls they are positioned directly above an opening for a door or “pass-through” window separated from the larger openings below by a 2 hour masonry panel. Further, the duct openings do not surpass the vertical extension of the width of the opening above which they are located.
According to the Applicant, the total width of all door and “pass-through” window openings does not exceed 25% of the lineal length of either firewall. This calculation for percentage openings, however, does not include separate consideration for the width of the mechanical openings. The issue for consideration is whether placing the duct openings directly above the door and window openings will provide sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of Article 3.1.10.5. of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 3.1.10.5. Maximum Openings
(1) Openings in a firewall shall conform to the size limits described in Article 3.1.8.6. and the aggregate width of openings shall be not more than 25% of the entire length of the firewall.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant provided the Commission with an overview of the issue at dispute. He submitted several exhibits depicting the as-constructed firewall openings and offered a comparison between what is proposed and what would be permitted by the Code if the door and window openings were vertically extended to incorporate the area where the duct penetrations are positioned. The hypothetical scenario, he submitted, would encompass a greater cumulative area than the current proposal, and yet would still not exceed 25% of the entire length of the firewall.
The Agent submitted that, generally, he agreed that each opening should be measured independently. However, in this instance, greater life safety is provided where openings are positioned directly above one another. He noted further, that the City has now agreed, in principal, to the Applicant’s reasoning but, because of the technical opinion provided by the Building and Development Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Town is
still requiring that this matter be resolved by the Building Code Commission.
In summation, the Agent reiterated that, following the example depicted in Scenario 2 presented in Exhibit 7, significantly larger openings would be permitted than what is proposed in this building. He noted that the walls were constructed in accordance with Article 3.1.8.6. and comply with the requirements of 3.1.10.5. He suggested that the proposed configuration of openings offers better protection than what would be permitted by the Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that, in his opinion, the Applicant has achieved sufficiency of
compliance with Sentence 3.1.10.5. of the Code. He requested that the Commission, however, still rule on this matter since the Ministry’s Building and Development Branch has provided a contrary opinion suggesting that the as-built configuration does not comply with the Code
requirements. He noted that the technical background information report prepared in connection with this dispute states that combining openings in this manner is not an option permitted by the Code.
In response to questioning, the Respondent submitted that he did not believe that the structural integrity of the wall system was at issue in respect to the aggregate length of openings. Instead, he suggested, that the issue is related to fire safety and protection (i.e. closures). He stated that the Town would satisfy itself as to the structural integrity of the firewalls and compliance with other relevant provisions of the Building Code. He asked, however, that the Commission rule as to the sufficiency of compliance of the proposal with Sentence 3.1.10.5.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the size and positioning of openings in the as-constructed firewalls will provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.10.5. of the Building Code at the Clearview Christian Reformed Church, 2300 Sheridan Garden Drive, Oakville, Ontario, on condition that:
1. The Chief Building Official is satisfied that:
a) The as-constructed firewalls will meet the definition of “firewall” as set out in Article 1.1.3.2. of the Code in respect to the structural stability of the wall under fire conditions;
b) The as-constructed firewalls will comply with Sentences 3.1.10.1.(1) and 3.1.10.1.(2) of the Building Code;
c) The as-constructed firewalls have been designed to meet the requirements of Article 4.1.10.4. of the Building Code; and
d) Fire dampers and mechanical duct openings in the firewalls will comply with the requirements of 3.1.10.1.(4). of the Code.
2. The mechanical duct openings in the firewalls are to be positioned such that the width of the mechanical opening is entirely within the vertical extension of the width of the door or shutter opening located directly below it.
3. Those portions of the masonry firewalls situated between the door/shutter openings and the mechanical duct openings will remain structurally stable under fire conditions as required by Article 3.1.10.1. of the Building Code.
6. Reasons
i) The mechanical duct openings are positioned directly above the openings for a door or shutter.
ii) The horizontal projection of the individual mechanical duct openings will be within the width of the corresponding door or shutter opening above which the
mechanical openings are situated.
iii) The aggregate width of all door and shutter openings in each firewall does not exceed 25% of the entire length of the firewall.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day in the month of January in the year 2005 for application number 2004-73.
________ Tony Chow, Chair
________ Donald Pratt
________
