Ruling No. 01-01-794 Application # 2000-73

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Clauses 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) and (c) 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 Dr. G. Sauve, Board of Directors, Lycee Claudel Private School, Ottawa, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Chris Freeman, Chief Plan Examiner, City of Ottawa, Ontario, to determine whether the location of the existing hydrant proposed to serve the needs of the expanded school facility provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) and (c) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) at Lycee Claudel (Private School), 1635 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario. APPLICANT

Dr. G. Sauve Board of Directors Lycee Claudel (Private School) Ottawa, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Richard Hewitt Chief Building Official City of Ottawa

PANEL

Mr. Len King, Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Steele Mr. Fred Barkhouse

PLACE

Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

January 11, 2001

DATE OF RULING

January 11, 2001

APPEARANCES

Mr. George Nichols, Architect George Nichols Architect Inc. Kanata, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Mr. Frank Bell / Luc Nadeau Part 3 Plan Examiners City of Ottawa Designates for the Respondent

-2-

RULING 1.

The Applicant

Dr. G. Sauve, Board of Directors, Lycee Claudel (Private School), Ottawa, Ontario, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 and has expanded an existing school complex at Lycee Claudel, 1635 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario. 2.

Description of Construction

The Applicant has expanded an existing school facility, built in 1960, by adding a new one storey multipurpose room to the rear of its gymnasium. The entire complex including the new addition has a Group A, Division 2 - Assembly occupancy. The building is of noncombustible construction, and is equipped with a fire alarm system but not a sprinkler system. The existing complex is 3,075 m2 in building area. The new addition occupies an area of 499 m2. The existing portions of the school complex, referred to as blocks A, B, and C, are located around a rectangular open air podium. Blocks A and B border the podium at its north and south sides, respectively. The east side of the podium is flanked by block C (the gymnasium). The new portion, referred to as block D, has been added to the east side of block C (or the gymnasium). While the three parts of the building appear above grade to be separate structures, they are in fact considered to be one building since they are connected by below grade corridors located underneath the open air podium. This below grade link contains pedestrian corridors, student locker rooms, showers, washrooms and a storage room. The adjacent blocks (A, B, and C) are separated from the link by a fire separation having a fire resistance rating of 45 minutes. As currently built and used, the link does not comply with an underground walkway as envisaged in Article 3.2.3.19. and therefore cannot be considered as a facility to separate two or more buildings. The addition is accessible through block C and a new above grade covered walkway constructed along the south side of block C. This walkway terminates at the main entrance to block D and is connected to the podium through a stairway located at the south-east corner between blocks B and C. The construction in dispute involves the location of the existing fire hydrant which is proposed to serve the fire fighting needs of the new addition. As part of the construction, the Applicant is proposing to construct a firewall at the western exposing building face of block C where it abuts the podium. In so doing, the Applicant is creating a separate building comprised of blocks C and the addition onto to it; block D. This structure, with a smaller building area of only 1,219 m2, will be subject to less stringent OBC requirements. As a distinct building, blocks C and D are required to face a street or an access route. The Applicant is proposing that the existing access route to the south of the building be considered as the access route serving the new building. There are two fire hydrants currently on the property. One is located in the extreme north-west corner of the lot to serve a separate administration building. The second hydrant, subject to the dispute at hand, is located directly opposite the open air podium and is approximately 45 m (via the podium) from the main entrance of the gymnasium - block C. The Applicant intends to use this

-3existing fire hydrant in order to provide water for fire fighting for the gymnasium and its extension (the multipurpose room). 3.

Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the location of the existing hydrant proposed to serve the needs of the expanded school facility provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) and (c) of the OBC. According to Clause 3.2.5.5.(2)(b), for a building not provided with a fire department connection, the total travel distance from a fire hydrant to the building must not exceed 90 metres. The distance described in this provision is comprised of two components; the length from the hydrant to the vehicle and the length from the vehicle to the building. This latter distance is specifically addressed in Clause 3.2.5.5.(2)(c) which states that the path of travel from the pumper vehicle to the building must be unobstructed and not exceed 45 metres. The travel distance from the fire hydrant opposite the open air podium as measured south on Riverside Drive to the existing fire access route south of block B and northward on the east side of block B to blocks C and D clearly exceeds the 90 m threshold. Exact figures were not supplied by the parties, but it is estimated to be at least 140 m. As a result, the Applicant is proposing that the path of travel envisaged in Clause 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) be measured from the subject hydrant across the podium to the stairs between blocks B and C and along the southern face of blocks C and D. He asserts that this distance, at 88 to 90 m, is within the allowable limit. As noted, the distance between this hydrant and the principle entrance of blocks C and D is 45 m. At issue then is whether the path of travel from the existing fire hydrant via the podium to blocks C and D can be deemed as an unobstructed path of travel for fire fighting purposes. 4.

Provisions of the Ontario Building Code

Clauses 3.2.5.5.

Location of Access Routes

(2) Access routes shall be provided to a building so that

(b) for a building not provided with a fire department connection, a fire department

pumper vehicle can be located so that the length of the access route from a hydrant to the vehicle plus the unobstructed path of travel for the fire fighter from the vehicle to the building is not more than 90 m (295 ft 3 in), and (c) the unobstructed path of travel for the fire fighter from the vehicle to the building is not more than 45 m (147 ft 8 in). 5.

Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant began by submitting that the new addition of 499 m2 attached to the existing gymnasium does not diminish the complex’s current life safety situation. He noted that the new addition occupies only 16% of the total footprint. Also, the new addition is noncombustible construction and there is no increase in the occupant load due to this expansion. As a result, from a fire safety point of view, there is no reduction in the performance level of the building that would require the installation of another fire hydrant, he argued.

-4The Agent then stated that the distance between the existing fire hydrant and the principle entrance of block C (the gymnasium) is less than 45 metres. Furthermore, the total travel distance to block D is within the 90 metre limit. Based on this, he argued that they comply with OBC provision 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) and that the existing hydrant already provides the level of safety required. In fact, the location of the new hydrant, as proposed by the City, is farther away from blocks C and D than the existing one. He described the additional hydrant as redundant. The only issue remaining, therefore, in his view is whether the open air podium is considered an obstruction to the required path of travel. On this point the Agent noted that the podium is a two hour horizontal fire separation and he stated that “running firehoses (sic) across it is no different than running (them) across an underground parking structure that extends out beyond a building footprint.” He added that it may be possible to remove some of the perceived obstacles that may prevent access across the podium. The Agent reiterated that he feels they already meet Code. He stated that the local fire department also thinks they meet the Code in a literal sense, but they thought it would be preferable from a fire fighting perspective that a third hydrant be installed. In summation, the Agent added that while the City’s position is admirable, they also have to balance cost issues. In his view, if they meet Code they do not feel it is justifiable to add another hydrant. Especially so when the proposed hydrant is questionable with respect to improving public safety. He concluded by stating that the City’s position seems to be an exercise about striving for literal compliance with the Code. 6.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent submitted that with the construction of the proposed firewall, blocks C and D would now be considered a separate building under the OBC and in accordance with Sentence 3.2.2.10.(1) must therefore either face a street or be provided with an access route conforming to Articles 3.2.5.5. and 3.2.5.6. In the plan review process, the Respondent noted, the Applicant indicated that they would provide an OBC compliant access route to the south of the complex and that a new hydrant would be installed on that access route. On this basis, a permit was issued. However, since then the Applicant has instead opted to rely on the existing fire hydrant, he explained. Assuming no new hydrant will be installed, the Respondent stated that the Applicant basically has two choices regarding the existing hydrant. In terms of utilizing the access route south of the building, the Respondent described it as “nowhere close” to the disputed hydrant. As such, he indicated that the option of providing fire fighter access around the southern end of the school would far exceed the 90 m limit. The other option, measuring the path of travel from the hydrant to block C and D across the podium, is problematic. He argued that, in his view, the podium is obstructed since it contains certain fences and gates. The Respondent noted that, contrary to the Applicant’s statement, the municipal fire department’s inspector David Port found the podium approach route to be “not an acceptable solution”. As result, he argued that the city has no choice but to require that a new fire hydrant be installed at the southern access route within 90 metres of the building to ensure conformance with the Ontario Building Code.

-5-

7.

Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the location of the existing hydrant proposed to serve the needs of the expanded school facility does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 3.2.5.5.(2)(b) and (c) of Ontario Building Code at Lycee Claudel School, 1635 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario. 8.

Reasons

i)

The configuration of the podium with respect to the existing blocks and the new addition, in conjunction with the fences and lockable gates, create a proposed path of path of travel for fire fighting purposes that is indirect and has potential to be obstructed.

-6-

Dated at Toronto this 11 th, day in the month of January, in the year 2001 for application number

2000-73.

Mr. Len King, Vice-Chair

Mr. Michael Steele

Mr. Fred Barkhouse