Ruling No. 00-54-786
Application No. 2000-66
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 9.8.8.8., 4.1.10.1. and Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) 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. Christian Wingelaar, Waterloo, Ontario, for the
resolution of a dispute with Mr. James A. Witmer, Chief Building Official, City of Kitchener, Ontario,
to determine whether the proposed guard comprised mainly of 35 mm diameter acrylic rods complies
with Articles 9.8.8.8. and 4.1.10.1. and whether the irregular curved stair provides sufficiency of
compliance with Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at the Zinger Residence, Lot 9, 2121
Hidden Valley Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPLICANT
Mr. Christian Wingelaar, President
Wingelaar Estate Homes
Waterloo, Ontario
RESPONDENT
Mr. James A. Witmer
Chief Building Official
City of Kitchener
PANEL
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. Fred Barkhouse
Mr. Donald Pratt
PLACE
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING
November 2, 2000
DATE OF RULING
November 2, 2000
APPEARANCES
Mr. Hans Gollek, President/Owner
Wooden Stairs & Railing Ltd.
Kitchener, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Mr. Glen D. Good
Deputy Chief Building Official
City of Kitchener
Designate for Respondent
-2-
RULING
1.
The Applicant
Mr. Christian Wingelaar, Waterloo, Ontario, has received a building permit under the Building Code
Act, 1992 and has constructed a new detached dwelling at Lot 9, 2121 Hidden Valley Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario.
2.
Description of Construction
The Applicant has recently constructed a new single detached dwelling, one storey in building height
and less than 600 m2 in building area. The building is to be used as the principal residence of the Zinger
family. At the request of the owners, the stairs and guards in the subject house were custom built. The
Applicant, the general contractor, contracted out the construction of the stairs and guards to a custom
builder.
There are two areas of construction in dispute. The first involves the design and structural integrity of
the guard serving stairs that connect the ground floor of the dwelling to the basement level. The guard
is also installed on the ground floor to protect the elliptical opening for the subject stair assembly. The
balusters that make up the guard are solid acrylic rods, spaced at 100 mm (4 in) on centre and are
secured into the wooden handrail at the top and into each stair tread at the bottom. The acrylic rods
are 35 mm (1 3/8 in) in diameter and are embedded 50 mm (2 in) into the stair and 38 mm (1 ½ in) into
the railing.
The second issue at dispute involves the design of the aforementioned stair. Described as providing
access to egress, the proposed 17 riser stair has a modified curved design. As part of this unique design,
the stair treads do not radiate from a common point nor are the curved stringers parallel to one another
throughout the stair run. In fact, as the stairs descend they become wider. The width between stringers
at the top of the stairs is 1,118 mm (44 in) and at the bottom is 1,486 mm (58 ½ in). As well, the
second, third and fourth lower most stairs have elliptical nosing, i.e., they are slightly bowed or outward
projecting.
The minimum run of the individual stairs, ranging between 206.25 and 206.5 mm (8.12 and 8.13 in),
surpasses the 150 mm (5 7/8 in) requirement. No measurements were provided for the average stairs
runs, but it exceeds the minimum required of 200 mm (7 7/8 in) since even the minimum run is greater
than 200 mm. The bottom stair, however, which functions more like a landing, proposes a tread depth
of 813 mm (32 in) and has a semi-elliptical shape.
In terms of the uniformity of the stair run, again no measurements were provided at the average or midpoint of each tread. The Applicant, however, has noted that the proposed stair (including stairs 2, 3 and
4) has runs varying between 243 and 245 mm (9.57 to 9.59 in) at the “walking line”. The walking line
(see BCC Ruling # 00-12-744) is an imaginary line running throughout the stair and is measured at 300
mm (12 in) from the inside handrail. This is the line, according to the Applicant, which, from an
ergonometric point of view, represents the path of the mid-point of the body that an individual would
actually take to ascend or descend the stair, and not the average run (i.e., the precise middle of each
stair) that the Code recognizes.
3.
Dispute
The two issues at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent are i) whether the proposed guard,
comprised mainly of 35 mm diameter acrylic rods, complies with Articles 9.8.8.8. and 4.1.10.1. of the
-3Ontario Building Code; and ii) whether and the irregular curved stair provides sufficiency of compliance
with Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) of the OBC.
Article 9.8.8.8. stipulates that all guards shall conform to the loading criteria in Article 4.1.10.1. except
where guards are constructed with the requirements outlined in the Supplementary Guidelines (SG-7),
in which case they are deemed to satisfy the requirements of Sentence 9.8.8.8.(1).
Article 4.1.10.1. outlines the requirements for loads on guards. Sentences (1) and (2) indicate the
specifications required for the minimum horizontal load applied inward or outward at the top of every
guard and for the individual elements within the guard, including solid panels and pickets.
As outlined by the Housing Development and Building Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing in their memorandum dated October 12, 2000, “(w)here guards differ from the prescriptive
code requirements outlined in the Supplementary Guidelines to the OBC, guards may be designed
according to the Part 4 requirements to determine the loading criteria.” The Branch opinion further
stated that “(w)here the railing does not conform to the requirements of the SG-7 Guidelines, it shall
conform to the applicable requirements of Article 4.1.10.1.”
In this instance, the proposed guard that will run the length of the stair opening and the 17 riser stair,
has been reviewed Truetek Engineering Inc. with respect to certain loading capabilities. At dispute
however, is whether further loading calculations are required to confirm compliance with the OBC
requirements.
In respect to the second area of dispute involving the design of the stair, Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) requires
that stairs have a uniform rise and run in any one flight. This requirement, which must be applied to
exit and non-exit stairs alike is intended to provide consistent and uniform stair construction so that
users will avoid missteps potentially resulting in injury. With the irregular curve of the stair (as noted,
they do not radiate from a common point) and the elliptical shape of stairs two to four, the run has
certain variations. At issue then, is whether the proposed design, with the previously described
discrepancies in run uniformity, provides sufficiency of compliance with OBC Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1).
The Respondent raised concerns regarding whether the stair also failed to comply with Article 9.8.5.1.
which requires that curved stairs in exits meet Article 3.4.6.8. Among other stipulations, Sentence (2)
of Article 3.4.6.8. mandates that the inside radius must be “not less than twice the stair width.” In doing
so, this provision assumes that curved exit stairs are designed so that a line drawn at the riser face of
each individual tread towards the inside of the stair would meet at a common, single point. These
provisions, OBC 3.4.6.8. and 9.8.5.1., however, are applicable only to exit stairs. The present disputed
stairs, as private stairs within a dwelling, are considered as access to egress stairs and not exit stairs. As
a result, their failure to meet at a common radius point is not a Code violation and will therefore not
be addressed.
4.
Provisions of the Ontario Building Code
Article 9.8.8.8.
Construction of Guards
(1)
Except as permitted in Sentence (2), guards shall conform to the loading criteria in
Article 4.1.10.1
(2)
Guards constructed in accordance with the requirements in the Supplementary
Guidelines shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Sentence 9.8.8.8.(1).
-4-
Article 4.1.10.1.
Loads on Guards
(1) The minimum specified horizontal load applied inward or outward at the top of every
required guard shall be
(a) 3.0 kN/m (200 lb/ft) for means of egress in grandstands, stadia, bleachers and arenas,
(b) a concentrated load of 1.0 kN (225 lb) applied at any point for access walkways to
equipment platforms, contiguous stairs and similar areas where the gathering of many
people is improbable, and
(c) 0.75 kN/m (50 lb/ft) or a concentrated load of 1.0 kN (225 lb) applied at any point,
whichever governs, for
locations other than described in Clauses (a) and (b).
(2) Individual elements within the guard, including solid panels and pickets, shall be
designed for a concentrated load of 0.5 kN (113 lb) at any point in the element.
(3) The loads required in Sentence (2) need not be considered to act simultaneously with
the loads provided for in Sentences (1) and (4).
(4)
The minimum specified load applied vertically at the top of every required guard shall
be 1.5 kN/m (100 lb/ft) and need not be considered to act simultaneously with the
horizontal load provided for in Sentence (1).
Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) Uniform Treads and Risers
(1)
5.
Treads and risers shall have uniform rise and run in any one flight.
Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant submitted that, when designing a stair they always keep the Ontario
Building Code requirements uppermost in their minds. Nevertheless, he argued that, in the design of
this stair, the “walking line” concept measured at 300 mm (12 in) from the inside handrail was applied
and therefore a consistent tread run has been provided at that distance. This “walking line” they submit,
is the area determined to be the “centerline of an adult body transcending the stair, while holding on
to the handrail”. The only exception to this consistent stair run, he acknowledged, is the first stair which
has a width of 813 mm (32 in); it has been designed more as a landing than a stair. The Agent argued
that, when considering this design in the context of Article 9.8.5.2. and taking into account “a minimum
variation allowed in the home construction industry, the run along the inside/right stringer and any
slight alteration thereof due to the change in focal point are deemed permissible.”
In respect to the rise of the stair, the Agent submitted that “the Zinger stair is 7 1/4 (in), a comfortable
rise for a 17 rise staircase. In the Agent’s opinion, “Article 9.8.5.2. does not state that the stair must be
exactly as shown in article 9.8.5.2., nor that it must be a ‘90o curved stair, nor that the stair can’t be
flared, nor that the stair can’t have elliptical treads, nor that the stair can’t not have multiple focal points
along the inside stringer”.
In respect to the guards located along both the balcony and the stair, the Agent submitted that the
“Zinger handrail design is based on previous staircases (which have been built over the last 10 years),
where the handrail design has been made with the same profile, the same manufacturing techniques and
the same installation techniques. There has been no record of design and/or structural failure with this
design...”. He emphasized that the acrylic rods have been reviewed and approved by Truetek
Engineering to meet the requirements of article 4.1.10.1.. In addition, they have followed all OBC and
SG-7 requirements for the stair and handrails and the connection system. In the Agent’s opinion,
-5neither the requirements nor the intent of the Building Code are being violated.
6.
Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent stated that the stair designer has not considered the Ontario Building
Code’s prescriptive requirements in the design of this stair. He submitted that the “stair incorporates
a curved section, a modified winder section (at Top & Bottom) complete with elliptical shaped nosing
on the bottom three treads.” The curved and winder sections do not comply with the Ontario Building
Code due to the fact that the treads do not radiate from a common centre point, and /or turn through
an angle of 30o; the curved stringers are not parallel to each other and therefore are neither a curved stair
or a stair with winders.
The Designate argued that the stair that is the subject of this dispute is not the stair for which a permit
was issued. This stair was built completely in the designers shop, without notice to the Respondent of
any proposed changes. The Designate submitted that, in his opinion, when “you descend these stairs,
your body naturally wants to move from the inside to the outside of the curved path of travel which
results in having to negotiate a non-uniform run and tread width and a tendency for your body to move
away from the handrail.” This is not an appropriate design nor is it compliant with the OBC
requirements. He did state however, that he has come to an agreement with the Applicant that the
bottom stair can be considered as a landing.
In respect to the proposed guards, the Designate for the Respondent submitted that the design does not
comply with SG-7, nor has it been reviewed for compliance with Part 4 of the OBC. While he
acknowledges that this type of guard is structurally sound in respect to vertical loading, there is no
confirmation that these balusters would meet the requirements for lateral loading. He indicated that he
would need confirmation from a qualified engineer to satisfy his concerns in that regard.
7.
Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that concerning the Zinger Residence, Lot 9, 2121
Hidden Valley Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, the proposed guard, comprised mainly of 35 mm diameter
acrylic rods complies with Articles 9.8.8.1. and 4.1.10.1. of the Ontario Building Code on the condition
that:
(1)
the lateral capacity of the guard is verified by a qualified engineer.
It is also the decision of the Building Code Commission that the irregular curving stair provides
sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at the aforementioned
Zinger Residence.
8.
Reasons
i)
With verification of the lateral capacity, the guard will comply with the Ontario Building Code.
ii)
The variations related to the run of the stair are considered minimal and therefore sufficiently
comply with OBC requirements.
-6Dated at Toronto this 2nd day in the month of November in the year 2000 for application number 2000-66.
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. Fred Barkhouse
Mr. Donald Pratt