Ruling No. 00-56-788
Application # 2000-68
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Clause 3.1.5.12.(1)(a), Sentences 3.2.2.24.(2) and 3.3.1.1.(1), and
Sentence 3.3.1.4.(3) 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. Sasha Milenov, Architect/Principal, Sasha
Milenov Architect, Toronto, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Yaman Uzumeri,
Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, Ontario, to determine whether the proposed partition walls
and corridor configuration provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.5.12.(3),
3.2.2.24.(2), 3.3.1.1.(1), and 3.3.1.4.(3) of the Ontario Building Code for Unit 4, 9 Milvan Drive,
Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT
Mr. Sasha Milenov, Architect/Principal
Sasha Milenov Architect
Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT
Mr. Yaman Uzumeri
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto
PANEL
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. Robert De Berardis
Mr. Fred Barkhouse
PLACE
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING
November 16th, 2000
DATE OF RULING
November 16th, 2000
APPEARANCES
Mr. Sasha Milenov, Architect/Principal
Sasha Milenov Architect
Toronto, Ontario
The Applicant
Mr. Norm Kevilovski
Plan Examiner
City of Toronto, North District
Designate for the Respondent
-2-
RULING
1.
The Applicant
Mr. Sasha Milenov, Architect/Principal, Sasha Milenov Architect, Toronto, Ontario, has applied for
a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct new partition walls and corridor in
an existing social club facility located at Unit 4, 9 Milvan Drive, Toronto, Ontario.
2.
Description of Construction
The Applicant is proposing to remove a portion of an existing “retail” area contained within a Latin
American social club (located in Unit 4 of the subject building) and construct a replacement
merchant area. The subject building containing Unit 4 is described as two storeys in building height,
2,890 m2 in building area and as having a Group A - Division 2 major occupancy. The structure is
of noncombustible construction and is equipped with sprinkler and fire alarm systems.
The disputed unit, number 4, is L-shaped and 916 m2 in area. At the narrow, or front, portion of
the unit are existing stores, washrooms and offices configured around one central corridor. At the
wider, rear area of the unit is a large open eating space containing cooking and dining facilities.
Both of these areas are not being altered. It is the space in between them for which the new work is
intended.
The new “retail” area is to have larger tenant stores and will have a single 3 m (10 ft) wide central
corridor (replacing the two current corridors) linking the eating area at the rear to the existing 3 m
wide corridor at the front portion which, in turn, connects to the main entrance. The proposed
work will increase the area within the unit devoted to “mercantile” uses. The proposal is the latest
change in the evolution of the “retail” space that originated as an area of free market stalls for the
display and selling of items, which then became individual stores, and is now intended as a larger
area of reconfigured stores and corridor. The Applicant, however, is not proposing a change of use.
The construction in dispute therefore involves the proposed new “retail” store units and the
corridors serving them. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing to construct the partition walls
between the stores to a height of 3 m (10 ft) thereby leaving a gap of 1,295 mm (4 ft, 3 in) between
the top of the wall and the underside of the ceiling. The walls are to be comprised of 2 by 4 wood
studs with gypsum wallboard fastened on both sides. The same construction (including height) is
intended for the wall separating the stores and the corridor. These walls, however, as the store
fronts, will contain a substantial glazed window area and doors that swing outward in the direction
of egress. The corridor, as stated, will be 3 m (10 ft) in width and is to be a direct, straight line from
the food court, through the stores, to the exit.
3.
Dispute
The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed partition walls
and corridor configuration provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.5.12.(3),
3.2.2.24.(2), 3.3.1.1.(1), and 3.3.1.4.(3) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC).
Specifically, there are three main components to this dispute. The first involves Article 3.1.5.12.
which describes when combustible elements may be used in partition walls within buildings required
-3to be of noncombustible construction (see paragraph below). Sentence (3) of OBC 3.1.5.12. is
intended for sprinklered buildings. It permits combustible partition elements if the floor area is
sprinklered and if the partitions are not utilized under certain conditions not applicable to the
present case. The Applicant is proposing to use combustible construction, i.e., wood stud framing,
for the subject partition walls in a noncombustible, sprinklered building.
It should be noted that the construction for the building in which Unit 4 is contained is governed by
Article 3.2.2.24. The building qualifies under the conditions of Sentence (1) and is therefore
permitted to be built according to Sentence 3.2.2.24.(2). Among other things, this provision
stipulates that the building be of noncombustible construction and that the floor assemblies have
one hour rated fire separations.
The second issue relates to the separation of the retail store units. As proposed, the Applicant does
not intend to separate the individual stores from each other. His plan is to erect 3 m high partition
walls that leave a 1.3 m gap to the ceiling. Sentence 3.3.1.1.(1) requires that suites be separated from
adjoining suites by one hour fire separations. The two exceptions to Sentence (1), found in
Sentences (2) and (3), are not applicable. In particular, Sentence (2) permits the fire resistance rating
to be less than one hour but not less than 45 minutes if the construction requirements in Subsection
3.2.2. allow such a reduction. As shown, in the present case, however, Sentence 3.2.2.24.(2) requires
one hour separations. Sentence (3), on the other hand, exempts certain occupancies from the suite
to suite separation requirement. Group E - mercantile occupancies, for example, are among those
excepted. Nevertheless, as indicated above, the use of the social club (A2) was not proposed to be
changed to a Group E occupancy. Moreover, to qualify for this exemption the suites in question
must be served by corridors at least 9 m in width, not 3 m as proposed.
The final matter pertains to the separation of proposed corridor. Sentence 3.3.1.4.(3) permits a fire
separation between a corridor and a portion of the floor to be unrated if the area is sprinklered and
if the corridor does not serve certain uses not applicable here. In doing so, Sentence (3) is an
exemption to Sentence 3.3.1.4.(1) which mandates that all corridors shall have one hour rated
separations. Article 3.3.1.4., specifically Sentence (4), goes further to permit a sprinklered floor area
to waive the separation between it and a public corridor, however, the corridor must be at least 5 m
in width. The Applicant’s proposed corridor, at only 3 m wide, does not qualify for the exemption
from a separation under Sentence (4) and is therefore subject to Sentence (3).
4.
Provisions of the Ontario Building Code
Sentence 3.1.5.12.
(3)
Solid lumber partitions not less than 38 mm (1 ½ in) thick and partitions that contain wood framing are
permitted to be used in a building required to be of noncombustible construction provided
(a) the floor area containing the partitions is sprinklered, and
(b) the partitions are not
(i) located in a care or detention occupancy,
(ii) installed as enclosures for exits or vertical service spaces, or
(iii) used to satisfy the requirements of Clause 3.2.8.1.(1)(a).
Sentence 3.2.2.24.
(2) Combustible Elements in Partitions
Group A, Division 2, up to 6 Storeys, Any Area, Sprinklered
Except as permitted by Article 3.2.2.16., the building referred to in Sentence (1) shall be of
noncombustible construction, and
-4(a) floor assemblies shall be fire separations with a fire-resistance rating not less than 1 h, (b) mezzanines shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than 1 h, and
(c) all loadbearing walls, columns and arches shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that required
for the supported assembly.
Sentence 3.3.1.1.
(1) Separation of Suites
Except as permitted by Sentences (2) and (3), each suite in other than business and personal services
occupancies shall be separated from adjoining suites by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less
than 1 h. (See also Subsection 3.3.3. for care or detention occupancies, Article 3.3.4.2. for residential
occupancies and Article 3.1.8.7. for fire dampers.)
Sentence 3.3.1.4.
Public Corridor Separations
(3) If a floor area is sprinklered, no fire-resistance rating is required for a fire separation between a public corridor
and the remainder of the floor area provided the corridor does not serve a care or detention occupancy or a
residential occupancy. (See A-3.1.8.1.(1)(b) in Appendix A.)
5.
Applicant’s Position
The Applicant commenced his discussion by providing a background of the building, Unit 4 and its
various work undertaken over the years. He explained that the previous renovation, with the many
small stores, the double corridors and ornamental wood trim was intended to achieve a Mexican
look. He submitted that the current proposal is simply an improvement to the existing concept
previously approved by the building department.
The Applicant stated that the unit under dispute was originally approved as a social club for a LatinAmerican community group which was to be used only by its members. He noted that the
occupancy and restricted usage of the building will remain. The proposed changes are internal and
limited to enlargement of existing retail units and combination of two existing corridor to create a
larger one.
The Applicant continued that with proposed construction all combustible materials used for the
Mexican-style decorations of the ceiling and elsewhere was being removed. This alteration decreases
the fire load of the building to a large extent. In addition, instead of open stalls there will now be
larger suites with outward swinging doors oriented perpendicularly to one wider corridor. As he
noted, all of the above construction does not bring about any substantial nor structural change.
In conclusion, the Applicant requested that because the building is entirely sprinklered and equipped
with a fire alarm system that they be permitted to proceed with their proposal.
6.
Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that the retail units under dispute meet the criteria associated with suites
under the Code, therefore, they should comply with the construction requirements set out for suites
-5under the Ontario Building Code.
The Respondent argued that as the proposed corridor is only 3 metre wide, the retail suites are
required to be separated from the corridor by a rated fire separation. In addition, he stated that
under the Code, fire separations are also required to be maintained between adjoining suites.
However, the proposed construction does not meet any of these requirements as the intended
separations are neither rated nor extend to the ceiling.
The Respondent continued that the amount of combustible materials proposed for the partitions
exceeds that which is permitted in a building required to be of noncombustible construction.
The Respondent concluded by stating that if the partitions were not present, then the social club and
Unit 4 would comply with the OBC.
7.
Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed partition walls and corridor
configuration do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.1.5.12.(3), 3.2.2.24.(2),
3.3.1.1.(1), and 3.3.1.4.(3) of the Ontario Building Code for Unit 4, 9 Milvan Drive, Toronto,
Ontario.
8.
Reasons
i)
Each single-room retail unit is considered a suite. As a result, the proposed demising walls
between units are considered as fire separations between suites. Accordingly, since the
various relief available in the Code is not applicable, a one hour separation must be
provided.
ii)
Sentence 3.3.1.4.(3) waives the fire resistance rating for the proposed corridor, however, a
continuous separation between the corridor and the remainder of the floor area is required
since the corridor is only 3 m in width.
iii)
Inadequate compensating measures were offered to achieve sufficiency of compliance with
the above referenced OBC provisions.
-6Dated at Toronto this 16th day in the month of November in the year 2000 for application number
2000-68.
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. Robert De Berardis
Mr. Fred Barkhouse