Ruling No. 02-33-888 Application No. 2002-30

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 Sentence 9.10.9.11.(2) 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 Jodi Lougheed, property owner, for the resolution of a dispute with Don Warner, Chief Building Official, Township of Brock, to determine whether the existing use of the subject building would require a firewall to separate the residential occupancy from the horse stable when considering Article 1.2.1.2. of the National Farm Building Code or whether, in the alternative, the proposed fire separation between the two uses will provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.9.11.(2) of the Ontario Building Code at 1605 Concession 7, R.R. #3, in the Township of Brock, Ontario.

APPLICANT Jodi Lougheed Property owner Sunderland, Ontario

RESPONDENT Don Warner Chief Building Official Township of Brock

PANEL Kenneth Peaker, Chair Robert De Berardis Tony Chow

PLACE Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING October 17, 2002

DATE OF RULING October 17, 2002

APPEARANCES Jodi Lougheed Property owner Sunderland, Ontario The Applicant

Don Warner Chief Building Official Township of Brock The Respondent -2- RULING

1. The Applicant

Jodi Lougheed, property owner, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is proposing the construction of a fire separation between the existing residential and farm related portions of the building at 1605 Concession 7, R.R. #3, in the Township of Brock, Ontario.

2. Description of Construction

The Applicant is proposing an addition to the residential portion of an existing building which has been classified as containing both Group C and Group F, Division 3 major occupancies. The structure is one storey in building height, and with the inclusion of the addition, will be 526 m2 (5,662 ft2) in building area. It is comprised of combustible construction and is not equipped with either sprinkler, fire alarm or standpipe and hose systems. The F3 occupancy portion of the building, comprising 320.52 m2, is essentially used as a horse stable while the remaining Group C occupancy is a single residential unit.

The Applicant purchased the subject property and existing building in June 2002. The existing structure was originally constructed as a barn with an attached tack room. This tack room was converted into a residence by the previous owners without the benefit of a permit. At the time of purchase by the Applicant there was an outstanding work order against the property directing the previous owners to separate the two occupancies with a firewall.

The construction in dispute involves the nature of the separation to be provided between the two uses. The Applicant is proposing a one hour fire separation between the two occupancies using an assembly of wood studs and fire-rated drywall, whereas the Respondent is requiring a two hour firewall to be constructed between what he classifies as a residential use and a farm building.

3. Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether a two hour firewall is required between the two occupancies when considering Article 1.2.1.2. of the National Farm Building Code of Canada or whether the proposed one hour fire separation between the two existing uses, namely a Group C residential dwelling and a Group F, Division 3 horse stable, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.9.11.(2) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

Article 1.2.1.2. of the National Farm Building Code of Canada defines “farm building” as being a building or part of a building which does not contain a residential occupancy and which is associated with and located on land devoted to the practice of farming. Furthermore, it is a building used essentially for the housing of equipment or livestock, or the storage, production or processing of produce or feeds. The Respondent’s position in this regard is that the use of a portion of the building for a horse stable, which he considers to constitute a farm building, precludes the inclusion of residential occupancies within the same building. As a result, he is requesting the erection of a two hour firewall between the two occupancies to divide the structure into two separate buildings. -3-

Sentence (2) of Article 9.10.9.11. states that, with an exception not applicable here, a residential major occupancy, including live/work units, must be separated from other major occupancies classified as mercantile or medium hazard industrial occupancies with a separation having a fire-resistance rating of at least two hours.

As noted above, the existing building contains both Group C and F3 occupancies and houses a single residential unit and a horse stable. The Applicant is proposing a fire separation between the two occupancies having a one hour fire-resistance rating. They would be amenable to an increase in the resistance rating of a fire separation, however, because of construction constraints consider it excessive to require the two hour firewall requested by the Respondent.

4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code

Article 1.2.1.2. Defined Words and Phrases National Farm Building Code of Canada, 1995

Farm building means a building or part thereof which is associated with and located on land devoted to the practice of farming, and used essentially for the housing of equipment or livestock, or the production, storage or processing of agricultural and horticultural produce or feeds.

9.10.9.11. Separation of Residential Occupancies

(2) Except as provided in Sentence (3), a major occupancy classified as a residential occupancy, including live/work units, shall be separated from other major occupancies classified as mercantile or medium hazard industrial occupancies by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 h.

5. Applicant’s Position

The Applicant provided the Commission with a brief history of the subject site, advising that the existing building had been converted by the previous owners to include a residential dwelling and a horse stable. She stated that, because these two occupancies were not separated, the building was in contravention of the Code and a work order was issued by the municipality in this regard. She was aware of this outstanding work order at the time of the purchase of this property and she had also been advised that steps were being undertaken by the previous owners to respond to the work order. In this regard, an engineering firm had been retained to design the necessary firewall.

The Applicant advised that she took possession of the building on June 28, 2002 and was prepared to carry out construction of the firewall. It was at this point that she became aware that the design plans which were prepared could not be used as the previous owners had failed to pay for the engineered drawings. In addition, during this time, she stated that a masonry professional had reviewed the design and expressed concern that the firewall may jeopardize the integrity of the pre-engineered roof trusses which would have to be cut to accommodate the separation. Morever, in his opinion the design of the firewall was excessive. It was at this point the Applicant advised that she approached the municipality again to discuss alternatives to the masonry firewall. -4-

The Applicant submitted that she retained the services of another engineer who was of the opinion that, despite the definition of “farm building” in the National Farm Building Code, provisions in the Ontario Building Code would permit the use of a fire separation as opposed to a firewall. Plans to this effect were drawn up and submitted to the municipality and a building permit was issued by one of the municipal inspectors. This was done at a time when the Chief Building Official was absent and, upon his return, the proposed fire separation was questioned. All work on the construction has since stopped and the Applicant stated they are seeking a ruling on the appropriate separation from the Building Code Commission.

In respect to the use of the subject building, the Applicant advised that the horse stable portion of the structure is used strictly to house horses. There is no storage of hay or other combustible materials in the building. She further advised that the Group C portion of the structure is her personal residence. It is presently a fairly small living unit, measuring providing 918 ft2, and she is seeking to expand that portion of the structure. The Applicant further stated that she would be willing to install a fire alarm system in the building, including both heat and smoke detectors if this were considered appropriate by the Commission.

In summation, the Applicant advised that in her interpretation of the Ontario Building Code, a fire separation between the two uses could be permitted rather than the firewall requested by the municipality. She acknowledged the Respondent’s concern with respect to the definition of “farm building” but submitted that the housing of a few horses for recreational purposes did not seem to completely fall within that definition.

6. Respondent’s Position

The Respondent submitted that in 1988 a permit was issued to the previous owners for the construction of a barn and tack room. It was then discovered that the tack room had been converted to habitable space and was being used as living quarters. Following some legal discussions involving the applicability of various municipal regulation, it was decided that some improvements to the building could be undertaken to turn the tack room into a dwelling unit.

The Respondent advised that the primary factor in his requirement for a firewall to separate the residence from the horse stable is the definition of “farm building” found in the National Farm Building Code of Canada. In his opinion a farm building precludes any residential component from being included within the same structure. As such, with the construction of a masonry firewall, two buildings will be created and the structure will then comply with the Code. He stated that a permit had been issued for the construction of such a firewall but intervening occurrences have, thus far, prevented its erection.

The Respondent acknowledged that there may be structural concerns where the proposed firewall intersects the roof trusses but his aim is this regard is still to create two separate buildings. Aside from that he did not believe that a fire separation would comply with the requirements of the Code in Sentence 2.1.1.5.(2) which state that farm buildings must conform with the requirements of the Farm Code.

In summation, the Respondent submitted that the root of the problem stems from the definition of a farm building and whether this definition applies to the subject structure. He acknowledged the Applicant’s efforts to achieve an acceptable level of safety but felt that a fire separation simply did not comply with the requirements of the regulations. -5-

7. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that a fire separation between the existing residential dwelling and horse stable in the subject building will provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.10.9.11.(2) of the Ontario Building Code at 1605 Concession 7, R.R. #3, in the Township of Brock, Ontario on condition that: a) A two hour fire separation is to be constructed between the existing residence and the stable. b) A fire alarm system providing heat detection in the horse stable and smoke detectors in the residence is to be installed.

8. Reasons i) The subject horse stable is considered to be a storage facility where only horses are housed. No combustible material is to be stored within the horse stable. ii) With implementation of the above conditions, sufficiency of compliance will be achieved in this existing building. -6-

Dated at Toronto this 17th day in the month of October in the year 2002 for application number 2002-30.

Kenneth Peaker, Chair

______Robert De Berardis

______Tony Chow