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 John Kuiack, Wasko Development, for the resolution of a dispute with Rocky Cerminara, Chief Building Official, City of London, to determine whether the 800 mm non-climbable zone required for guards in Article of the Ontario Building Code may be measured directly from the level of the walking surface to a height of 800 mm and, if so, whether the as-installed guard, having pickets with horizontal cross members at approximately 787 mm above the walking surface, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE John Kuiack Wasko Development London, Ontario Rocky Cerminara Chief Building Official City of London Len King, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt Toronto and London, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 21, 2002 DATE OF RULING November 21, 2002 APPEARANCES Carl Roes Roes Stair Co. Inc. Mt. Brydges, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Dave Howe (Via Teleconference) Manager of Inspections City of London Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant John Kuiack, Supervisor, Wasko Development, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies with respect to the construction of a single family dwelling located at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a Group C single detached dwelling. The structure is two storeys in building height and approximately 472 m 2 in building area. The construction in dispute involves the design of the guard serving the interior stairs and the open floor area on the second floor. The as-installed guard consists of a wood top rail and wrought iron vertical members (hereafter pickets). The pickets have been designed into groups of three, with each group having a decorative horizontal cross member towards the upper portion of the guard system. A curved portion, which extends to the wood top rail, has been attached above each horizontal member, thereby creating a semi-circular/crescent design. These horizontal cross members, which are located 787 mm above the walking surface, are not continuous and do not extend from one group of pickets to the next. Each picket also has a small decorative protrusion at its midpoint. 3. Dispute There are two issues at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent. The first is whether the 800 mm non-climbable zone (as measured perpendicularly above the walking surface of the floor area) required for guards in Article of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) may, in the subject case of the as-installed guard at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario, be measured directly from the level of the walking surface to a total height of 800 mm. The second dispute is whether the asinstalled guard, having pickets with horizontal cross members at approximately 787 mm above the walking surface, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article at the same residence. Sentence (1) stipulates that required guards, which serve buildings of residential occupancy, must be designed in such a way so as not to facilitate climbing between 100 mm (4 in) and 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above the floor or walking surface of the area the guard is protecting. This requirement provides for a non-climbable zone of 800 mm (2 ft 7 in). The 800 mm protected region, beginning 100 mm above the walking surface, is intended to limit the likelihood that a picket, or decorative element, would produce a ladder effect, which could lead to a child climbing over the guard system. As noted above, the horizontal cross members, located 787 mm above the walking surface of the floor area, are within the non-climbable zone required by Sentence (1) of the Code. The Appendix to Article (A ), while not an official part of the Code, offers a rationale as to the intent of this Code provision, because it outlines why guards must be designed to prevent climbing. It states that the risk of falling over a guard is especially prevalent for young children, who may use decorative elements as foot and handholds. This risk is especially prevalent in guards that are constructed with horizontal or near horizontal members between pickets, as a ladder effect may be achieved, thereby becoming very tempting for a young child to climb. This could, in turn, result in accidental falls from one level to another. A stipulates that the requirements are stringent for guards in all buildings except industrial occupancies, where children are unlikely to be present unless

3 -3- under strict supervision. It should be noted that Article is not intended to entirely eliminate the possibility of climbing. Instead, it is intended to reduce the likelihood and temptation of scaling a guard by young children. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Design to Prevent Climbing (See Appendix A.) (1) Guards required by Article and serving buildings of residential occupancy shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 100 mm (4 in) and 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard will facilitate climbing. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by providing the Commission with a sample of the guard in dispute. He maintained that the installation of the guard proceeded without prior discussion with the Respondent party in regards to its shape and design. The Agent cited that it is the opinion of the manufacturer of the guards that its design poses no problem, despite the fact that the Respondent party maintains the opposite opinion. The Agent added that the issue at dispute pertains to the horizontal elements located 787 mm above the walking surface, and not the ornamental protrusion present at approximately the mid-point of every vertical picket. He stated that a previous ruling made by the Commission dealt with the ornamental protrusions and the Respondent party concurred with this statement. The Agent added that the entire guard in dispute measures to a height of 921 mm (measuring from the floor to the top of handrail), which is 21 mm higher than required. The Agent submitted that it is his belief that the semi-circular/crescent member, which is attached to, and located immediately above, the horizontal member is the only portion of the guard system that a child can gain a foot or handhold. The lower portion of this semi-circular/crescent member is located 787 mm above the floor of the walking surface. The Agent then went on to question whether the 800 mm non-climbable zone, required by Sentence (1) of the Code, needs to be measured from 100 mm above the walking surface of the floor area to a height of 900 mm, or whether it can be measured directly from the walking surface of the floor area to a height of 800 mm. The Agent argued that the integrity of the 800 mm non-climbable zone is still maintained if measured from the walking surface of the floor area and that it has only been shifted slightly downward in this particular instance. In this regard, if the non-climbable zone is measured directly from the floor of the walking surface, then the distance from the lower point of the semicircular/crescent element to the floor of the walking surface, which measures 787 mm, is only 13 mm shy of the 800 mm non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence (1) of the Code. The Agent then asked the Commission whether they would consider the notion of a sliding non-climbable zone and, if so, whether the 13 mm variance, provided sufficiency of compliance with the intent of Sentence (1) of the Code. In summary, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that it is both his opinion, and the opinion of the manufacturer, that the guard system in question poses no design problems with respect to the issue of child climbing.

4 -4-6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that it is his belief that the climbing protection zone should be measured to the upper portion of the horizontal cross member and not to the lower portion of the semi-circular/crescent element, which is attached to, and featured immediately above, the horizontal cross member. The Designate added that it is his opinion that the horizontal cross member produces a visual effect that is somewhat similar to a ladder, which may entice child climbing. The Designate added that the horizontal cross member, which measures to a height of 775 mm from the floor of the walking surface, is clearly within the 100 mm to 900 mm zone outlined in Sentence (1) of the Code. The Designate continued by stating that the Code does not address a sliding non-climbable zone and therefore disagrees with the Agent s assertion of measuring the zone directly from the walking surface of the floor area to a height of 800 mm. Furthermore, he added that regardless of whether the climbing protection zone is measured from 100 mm above the walking surface to a height of 900 mm, or directly from the floor of the walking surface to a height of 800 mm, the horizontal cross member and its semicircular/crescent attachment still falls within the vertical zone applicable to guard design that is intended to protect against climbing and, therefore, does not comply with the OBC. In summary, the Designate argued that the horizontal members could provide a graspable ledge, which may assist a child in pulling him or herself over the guard. In his opinion, the as-installed guard system is not in compliance with the Code, because it could facilitate child climbing. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the 800 mm non-climbable zone (as measured perpendicularly above the walking surface) required for guards in Article of the Ontario Building Code may, in the subject case of the as-installed guard at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario, be measured directly from the level of the walking surface to a total height of 800 mm. It is also the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-installed guard, containing pickets with horizontal cross members located 787 mm above the walking surface, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the Ontario Building Code at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) Article prescribes a vertical zone applicable to guard design that is intended to protect against climbing. The Article indicates that this zone is to be between 100 mm and 900 mm above the walking surface. In the Commission s view, the prescribed zone of non-climbability does not need to be fixed at 100 to 900 mm and may be moved slightly upwards or downwards as long as the intent of the provision is maintained, i.e., the integrity of the 800 mm zone of non-climbability is not compromised. ii) The existing guard provides a vertical clearance from the floor to the upperside of the lowest point of the semi-circular elements of 787 mm, which is only 13 mm less than the 800 mm requirement discussed above. iii) The vertical guard is 921 mm in height which exceeds the minimum height requirement of 900

5 -5- mm by 21 mm and provides compensation for the above 13 mm compliance discrepancy. iv) The BCC holds that the existing, as-built design does not entice children to climb the subject guard, nor is it, we believe, easy for young children to climb over.

6 -6- Dated at Toronto this 1st day in the month of May in the year 2003 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt