AITA? Storage building exits

[Inspector Gadget]

Had an application come in for an industrial building. >600m2 (>6000 ft2 for you murricans).
Canadian Code requires this floor are to have more than one exit (outward swinging door).
Designer pushing back, with the declaration the "actual" area will be far less because sand/salt will be stored in the structure, and it's low human occupancy.
Received the "We've done a dozen of these in the province, never had to do this anywhere else" line.

The way I see it, the floor area is clearly defined as outside wall to outside wall - independent of what's inside. The structure requires two exits. It exceeds the 200m2 limit under Part 3 for one exit, simple and easy.

Part 2, which deals with farm buildings (low human occupancy) has the same criteria, btw., so "low human occupancy" doesn't act as the get out of the second exit free card, even if used as a reference/alternative solution. (And it's not a farm building in any event.)

Thoughts?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Had an application come in for an industrial building. >600m2 (>6000 ft2 for you murricans).
Canadian Code requires this floor are to have more than one exit (outward swinging door).
Designer pushing back, with the declaration the "actual" area will be far less because sand/salt will be stored in the structure, and it's low human occupancy.
Received the "We've done a dozen of these in the province, never had to do this anywhere else" line.

The way I see it, the floor area is clearly defined as outside wall to outside wall - independent of what's inside. The structure requires two exits. It exceeds the 200m2 limit under Part 3 for one exit, simple and easy.

Your view would be correct under the IBC and, assuming the Canadian Building Code has a similar definition for building area, you are correct and the designer is blowing smoke. The designer's view is a lot like saying that the "actual" area of an 80,000 square foot supermarket is really only 20,000 square feet because 60,000 square feet are occupied by shelves and products. That's not how this works.

"I've been doing it this way for thirty years."

"Then you've been doing it wrong for thirty years."

 

[Inspector Gadget]

"I've been doing it this way for thirty years."

"Then you've been doing it wrong for thirty years."

This is why I always give code references with a ruling. In this case I spat back the definition of floor area and asked the designer how is interpretation meshed with the definition.

 

[Yikes]

Not sure about Canadian code, but IBC1004.5 allows the building official to make a determination that the actual number of occupants in a space may be lower than determined by the occupant design load. In that instance the lower occupant load gets posted.

I used this often on basketball courts at private fitness centers. The normal occupant design load for a typical gym almost assumes a packed high school rally, whereas the actual fitness center use maybe tops out around 20 people per court (2 teams of 5 people each playing a half-court game).

Is there a similar discretionary provision in the Canadian code for something that is essentially raw material shelter?
For example, what is the occupant load of a grain silo?

 

[socaldano]

Normally, I am a firm adherent to minimum safety code requirements. However, there are rare and reasonable circumstances where an inspector must point out a serious safety concern, even if it is not explicitly addressed in code. Courts in my jurisdiction have consistently held that the burden lies with the inspector/city to demonstrate that a condition presents a genuine health or safety hazard.

That said, in any commercial or industrial building, a secondary exit located at a significant distance from the main entrance should be considered a baseline safety expectation. For example, if a dump truck unloading salt or a forklift moving pallets were to catch fire near the main entrance, occupants could be trapped without a viable means of escape. Or in this day and age, a shooter situation, workers not trapped.

At a minimum, I believe the inspector should offer the builder to propose a simple secondary egress point of his choice —either a door or a window—sufficient to allow:

1. Safe and rapid evacuation of occupants
2. Access for emergency personnel
3. should the primary entrance become compromised.

Giving the question to the builder, explaining the dilemma, giving him latitude to do it his way, should dismiss any pushback. " I am very uncomfortable with only one exit. Why don't you come up with a solution that allows someone trapped inside a second egress, or rescue another entrance and we will almost certainly go with it."

 

[socaldano]

Your view would be correct under the IBC and, assuming the Canadian Building Code has a similar definition for building area, you are correct and the designer is blowing smoke. The designer's view is a lot like saying that the "actual" area of an 80,000 square foot supermarket is really only 20,000 square feet because 60,000 square feet are occupied by shelves and products. That's not how this works.

"I've been doing it this way for thirty years."

"Then you've been doing it wrong for thirty years."

LOL, the logical fallacy Argumentum ad antiquitatem occurs when someone claims that something is right, correct, or better simply because it has "always been done that way" or has been done that way for a long time.

 

[tmurray]

Not sure about Canadian code, but IBC1004.5 allows the building official to make a determination that the actual number of occupants in a space may be lower than determined by the occupant design load. In that instance the lower occupant load gets posted.

I used this often on basketball courts at private fitness centers. The normal occupant design load for a typical gym almost assumes a packed high school rally, whereas the actual fitness center use maybe tops out around 20 people per court (2 teams of 5 people each playing a half-court game).

Is there a similar discretionary provision in the Canadian code for something that is essentially raw material shelter?
For example, what is the occupant load of a grain silo?

Canadian codes allow a different occupant load than what is calculated, provided it is posted. However, that would not have an impact on the two exit requirements. The number of exits is denoted by remoteness and travel distance requirements. Exit size (above the minimum door size) is driven by occupant load.

 

[steveray]

Canadian codes allow a different occupant load than what is calculated, provided it is posted. However, that would not have an impact on the two exit requirements. The number of exits is denoted by remoteness and travel distance requirements. Exit size (above the minimum door size) is driven by occupant load.

Yep..beating down the OL has nothing to do with it if OL is not the driving factor for the number of exits...

 

[tmurray]

Normally, I am a firm adherent to minimum safety code requirements. However, there are rare and reasonable circumstances where an inspector must point out a serious safety concern, even if it is not explicitly addressed in code. Courts in my jurisdiction have consistently held that the burden lies with the inspector/city to demonstrate that a condition presents a genuine health or safety hazard.

That said, in any commercial or industrial building, a secondary exit located at a significant distance from the main entrance should be considered a baseline safety expectation. For example, if a dump truck unloading salt or a forklift moving pallets were to catch fire near the main entrance, occupants could be trapped without a viable means of escape. Or in this day and age, a shooter situation, workers not trapped.

At a minimum, I believe the inspector should offer the builder to propose a simple secondary egress point of his choice —either a door or a window—sufficient to allow:

1. Safe and rapid evacuation of occupants
2. Access for emergency personnel
3. should the primary entrance become compromised.

Giving the question to the builder, explaining the dilemma, giving him latitude to do it his way, should dismiss any pushback. " I am very uncomfortable with only one exit. Why don't you come up with a solution that allows someone trapped inside a second egress, or rescue another entrance and we will almost certainly go with it."

It sounds like law is a little different in Canada.

Case law in Canada has established that the code is the minimum standard in relation to what can safely be built. A building inspector only needs proof that the owner/contractor contravened the code.

A building designer can propose something that is demonstrated to be "just as safe" and it can be found to be acceptable by the AHJ. Furthermore, courts have found that failure to get a building permit and/or allow mandatory inspections results in a presumption that the building is unsafe.

Recently we had a city's building official's order was appealed. In my decision I found that the fact that the owner had not taken out a permit resulted in the presumption that the construction was unsafe (someone who is clearly flouting the building regulatory regime cannot be assumed to be compliant with other building regulatory requirements). This element (among others) was then appealed to an appeals court judge, who found that that "I did not make a mistake at law" with classifying the building as unsafe.

 

[tmurray]

Had an application come in for an industrial building. >600m2 (>6000 ft2 for you murricans).
Canadian Code requires this floor are to have more than one exit (outward swinging door).
Designer pushing back, with the declaration the "actual" area will be far less because sand/salt will be stored in the structure, and it's low human occupancy.
Received the "We've done a dozen of these in the province, never had to do this anywhere else" line.

The way I see it, the floor area is clearly defined as outside wall to outside wall - independent of what's inside. The structure requires two exits. It exceeds the 200m2 limit under Part 3 for one exit, simple and easy.

Part 2, which deals with farm buildings (low human occupancy) has the same criteria, btw., so "low human occupancy" doesn't act as the get out of the second exit free card, even if used as a reference/alternative solution. (And it's not a farm building in any event.)

Thoughts?

Ask for code justification for a single exit.

Sounds like a whole lot of "Bullshit, Baffle, Belittle" style designing to me.

Assuming this is coming from another one of my employer's departments, many departments departments have reported to me that when they see who the owner is, they don't actually do a code review and just issue the permit (even things like schools and hospitals). This is incorrect in accordance with Section 3 of the BCAA. They are subject to the same review and inspection process as everyone else. I have spent a lot of my time explaining to my colleagues that yes, they do need to follow the code and no, they don't get any exception.

 

[Sifu]

Sounds like a whole lot of "Bullshit, Baffle, Belittle" style designing to me.

I like this. Maybe a new BBB rating system is in order. Probably a lot more informative than the current BBB rating we have.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Normally, I am a firm adherent to minimum safety code requirements. However, there are rare and reasonable circumstances where an inspector must point out a serious safety concern, even if it is not explicitly addressed in code. Courts in my jurisdiction have consistently held that the burden lies with the inspector/city to demonstrate that a condition presents a genuine health or safety hazard.

What constitutes your jurisdiction? Your state, or your county?

That view would very definitely not apply in my state. The building code (and in this state the State Building Code legally means the IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, NEC, IEBC, IECC, ICC A1771.1, and several other documents specifically enumerated in the enacting legislation). The State Building Code is the legally binding minimum standard, so if the code says two means of egress and a designer or contractor only provides one means of egress -- we don't have to show why the code should apply, the perpetrator is deemed to be in violation. Period.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Ask for code justification for a single exit.

Sounds like a whole lot of "Bullshit, Baffle, Belittle" style designing to me.

Assuming this is coming from another one of my employer's departments, many departments departments have reported to me that when they see who the owner is, they don't actually do a code review and just issue the permit (even things like schools and hospitals). This is incorrect in accordance with Section 3 of the BCAA. They are subject to the same review and inspection process as everyone else. I have spent a lot of my time explaining to my colleagues that yes, they do need to follow the code and no, they don't get any exception.

I'd heartily agree. I have seen more than a few provincial building alterations/new builds where the government didn't seem to think the Code applied to them. If I had a loonie for every time I've had the conversation that started with...

"We've never had to do that before ...."

In this case, the designer came back with a vastly better (and better documented) approach - essentially stating that the building was a low-human-occupancy structure not easily classified under 3.2.2, and more in line with the new Part 2 G4 occupancy. The argument (supported by an analysis made by a qualified fire protection specialist firm) makes sense - essentially the pitch was that LHO occupancies are allowed one exit under G4, and were this a farm occupancy, there would be no issue.

The irksome thing is that the letter they used was a couple of years old, and made reference to the future allowances under 2020 code, so they clearly *had* faced this kind of opposition from another AHJ before. That makes me inclined to believe that someone figured the country bumpkin would rubber-stamp the application without suitable review. Next we'll see if they have CAN/ULC S109 documentation for the structure's fabric.... that could be interesting.

Then we'll see if they read the plans review wherein I make note of the site plan showing a yet-designed building to be placed 8m away on the long edge of the tarp/tent structure, and raise the issue of "y'all may wanna do some spatial separation calcs before you wed yourself to this location."

What bothers me is the number of times I get the "we've never had to do that before" statement, and I don't get the feeling that other AHJ's have, in fact, done appropriate due diligence. I'm still relatively new to this biz .... I shouldn't be the one making these discoveries.