Ruling No. 03-34-932
Application No. 2003-41
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 3.7.4.1.(3) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98,
102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00, 283/01 and 220/02 (the “Ontario Building
Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Frank Mills, Westside Cemeteries Ltd., for the
resolution of a dispute with Ms. Ann Borooah, Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine
whether the proposed addition to a Group F, Division 3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water
closets, but is located 250 metres away from an adjacent building on the same property that contains
water closets, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.7.4.1.(3) of the Ontario Building Code
at Westminster Cemetery Mausoleum, 3850 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT
Frank Mills
Westside Cemeteries Ltd
Weston, Ontario
RESPONDENT
Ms. Ann Borooah
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto
PANEL
Tony Chow, Vice-Chair
Robert De Berardis
Gary Burtch
PLACE
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING
August 28, 2003
DATE OF RULING
August 28, 2003
APPEARANCES
David Hine
Hine Reichard Tomlin Inc.
Markham, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Tony Fiorino
Building Engineer
City of Toronto
Designate for the Respondent
-2-
RULING
1.
The Applicant
Frank Mills, Westside Cemeteries Ltd., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O.
1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing an addition to a mausoleum at Westminster Cemetery
Mausoleum, 3850 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario.
2.
Description of Construction
The Applicant is constructing a second-storey addition to an existing single-storey mausoleum having
a Group F, Division 3 occupancy. The second-storey addition is proposed to have an area of
approximately 311 m2, while the existing single-storey facility has a building area of 946 m2. Both the
existing facility, and the proposed addition, are of non-combustible construction.
The issue at dispute pertains to the requirement of providing a plumbing system to serve occupants in
the subject mausoleum. The Applicant is of the opinion that a plumbing system, specifically water
closets, is not required, because the subject mausoleum is not normally occupied and there are barrierfree public washrooms provided in a nearby building located approximately 250 m away. While the
Respondent agrees that the water closets can be excluded, he is also of the opinion that the 250 m travel
distance is too great. Since the Ontario Building Code does not require a minimum travel distance to
a washroom, at issue is whether the distance of 250 m is reasonable for a visitor to travel.
3.
Dispute
The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed addition to a
Group F, Division 3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water closets, but is located 250 metres
away from another building located on the same property that contains water closets, provides
sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.7.4.1.(3) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC).
Since its inception, the OBC has required buildings to be provided with, or have accessible to its
occupants, a plumbing system. Despite this, the first edition of the Code did provide an exemption to
this provision in situations when the installation of a sanitary drainage system was not possible because
of the absence of a water supply. In cases such as this, however, the Code also required that other
means for the disposal of human waste be provided, for instance, sanitary privies or chemical closets.
In 1978, an amendment to the Code was introduced stipulating that plumbing facilities may be omitted
in a building that is not normally occupied by persons, where such installations are impractical, and
where other facilities are available in nearby buildings when the subject building is in use. The current
Code [as prescribed in Sentence 3.7.4.1.(3)] continues to include this exemption; however, the Sentence
numbering has changed from the 1978 amendment.
4.
3.7.4.1.
(3)
Provisions of the Ontario Building Code
Plumbing and Drainage Systems
Plumbing fixtures need not be provided in a building which is not normally occupied by persons
where such installations are impractical and other fixtures are available in nearby buildings when
the subject building is in use.
-35.
Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant began by offering a brief description of the site on which the subject
mausoleum is located. The Agent advised that the site consists of burial plots, access roads, and a total
of fifteen mausoleums. The subject mausoleum is located on the southwest corner of the access road
that provides entrance into the mausoleum complex.
The Agent continued by advising that the subject mausoleum consists of an above grade, indoor
cemetery where the deceased are buried in crypts. He stated that the subject mausoleum is both
nominally heated, as well as nominally cooled. The Agent submitted that despite the fact that the subject
mausoleum is not serviced by a municipal water main, potable water is available. He added that there
is no assembly space, per se, offered in the mausoleum, and that there are relatively few services held
in the facility. As per the Agent, the crypts in the subject mausoleum are approximately 60% occupied,
thereby, resulting in the need to construct the second storey addition.
As indicated by the Agent, a permit was issued for the addition to the subject mausoleum. Shortly
thereafter, however, a revision to the permit was applied for that pertained to the removal of the
proposed janitor closets and the water closets shown on the original permit application drawings. The
Agent submitted that the proposal to remove the water closets was based on the fact that the subject
mausoleum is not normally occupied and is located within a reasonable distance to an adjacent building
that has barrier-free washrooms. Furthermore, he submitted that while constructing the addition results
in an increase in the number of crypts, it does not translate to an increase in the occupant load. As per
the Agent, the addition will simply assist in re-establishing visitation to the mausoleum, as it has been
found that the number of visits to a mausoleum decrease as time from date of burial increases. In this
regard, the Agent maintained that the existing water closets, located in an adjacent building 250 m away,
should be adequate as the occupant load is not increasing as a result of the addition.
The Agent then submitted that while the City of Toronto Building Department agrees that washrooms
are not required by the OBC in the subject mausoleum, they feel that the travel distance to the nearest
water closet, is too far. He submitted that the crux of the matter before the Commission is a subjective
determination of whether 250 m is too far to travel to the washroom, since in this instance the OBC
does not require a minimum travel distance to a washroom.
In summary, the Agent argued that the subject mausoleum should not be required to have water closets,
because the building is not normally occupied. Furthermore, he submitted that the proposed addition
will not result in an increase in occupancy, but will rather assist in maintaining current visitation levels
to the mausoleum. Finally, the Agent argued that water closets should not be required on the basis that
barrier-free washrooms are located within 250 m of the subject mausoleum which, in his opinion, is a
reasonable distance for visitors to travel.
6.
Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent submitted that drawings for the original permit application showed
two washrooms for the subject mausoleum, but that a revision to remove these was later made due to
fiscal constraints. He then stated that the OBC does not specifically address the provision of water
closets in mausoleums, but that the expectation on the part of visitors to find these types of sanitary
facilities still exists, as mausoleums are typically buildings with controlled environments. Furthermore,
the Agent submitted that while there are no expectations in an open, outdoor cemetery to have
plumbing facilities available, there are within buildings were funeral services are held.
The Designate continued by submitting that the Applicant is proposing to use the sanitary facilities
-4located in a building 250 m away in lieu of providing water closets in the proposed mausoleum addition.
As per the Designate, this is not a reasonable distance for occupants to travel, especially given the mental
and physical state that occupants may be in when they are within subject mausoleum. Furthermore, he
added that the plumbing facilities may be difficult to access during inclement weather.
The Designate then advised that he believes a travel distance of 250 m is unreasonable, especially since
an occupant will have to leave the subject mausoleum, travel a distance of 250 m, and then enter a
second mausoleum to access sanitary facilities. He submitted that while he acknowledges that Sentence
3.7.4.1.(3) of the OBC permits the exemption of plumbing fixtures when these are available in a nearby
building, he does not believe that a travel distance of 250 m meets the intent of the Code.
In summary, the Designate argued that while the OBC does not specifically address the provision of
water closets in mausoleums, there still exists the expectation that these types of sanitary facilities will
be provided. He also acknowledged that Sentence 3.7.4.1.(3) of the Code permits the exemption of
plumbing fixtures in certain building when these fixtures are provided in a nearby building. Despite this,
the Designate submitted that he believes the proposed travel distance of 250 m is excessive for a visitor
to travel.
7.
Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed addition to a Group F, Division
3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water closets will provide sufficiency of compliance with
Sentence 3.7.4.1.(3) of the Ontario Building Code at the Westminister Cemetery Mausoleum, 3850
Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the condition that:
a)
Signage is provided within the subject building, indicating the location of the available
washrooms.
8.
Reasons
i)
There is no dedicated space for entombment services to be conducted within the subject
building, thereby reducing the likelihood of large funerary services, which may necessitate the
need for washroom facilities.
ii)
The Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing building, which currently does not have
a sanitary drainage system.
iii)
There are water closets provided in an existing mausoleum, which is also located on this
cemetery property.
-5Dated at Toronto this 28th day in the month of August in the year 2003 for application number
2003-41.
Tony Chow, Vice-Chair
______
Robert De Berardis
_______
Gary Burtch