the building does not conform with the access to exit requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3.(8)

[sunyaer]

The following is excerpt from case "BCAB #1715 - Width of Access to Exit Stairs, Article 3.3.1.17." of Building Code Appeal Board of BC, Canada at

BCAB #1715 - Width of Access to Exit Stairs, Article 3.3.1.17.

A summary of Decision 1715 of the BC Building Code Appeal Board.

www2.gov.bc.ca

"......
Appeal Board Decision #1715

The Board notes the building does not conform with the access to exit requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3.(8) and the suites rely on direct exits from their floor spaces. This being the case the Board considers that the principles for exits in Section 3.4 must be applied and the exits from the suite in question must conform with Sentence 3.4.3.2.(7)."

What does "the building does not conform with the access to exit requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3.(8)" mean? Does it mean that "the access to exit requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3 (8)" does not apply to this building?

 

[tmurray]

Kind of. Basically 3.3.1.3.(8) provides for a few options: exterior exit doors, a door to a public corridor, or a door to an exterior exit passageway (also a few exceptions for dwelling units).

In this building, rather than a shared public corridor, there were mostly independent stairs from the second storey down and out of the building (arguable better). The question is if these stair enclosures were considered an exit, or just part of the means of egress.

The appellant is trying to argue that the stairs are simply part of the means of egress and the only "exit" is the exterior door at the bottom. The building official is arguing that the stairs form part of the exit and the minimum width would apply there too.

The appellant's argument would be attractive if not for the fact that one of the sets of stairs is shared by an adjacent suite. Typically, you cannot have your means of egress running through another suite, so we can hardly come to the conclusion that the shared stairs are part of one suite or the other. Based on this, the board came to the conclusion that the stairs themselves are an exit.

 

[sunyaer]

...

The appellant is trying to argue that the stairs are simply part of the means of egress and the only "exit" is the exterior door at the bottom. The building official is arguing that the stairs form part of the exit and the minimum width would apply there too.

The appellant's argument would be attractive if not for the fact that one of the sets of stairs is shared by an adjacent suite. Typically, you cannot have your means of egress running through another suite, so we can hardly come to the conclusion that the shared stairs are part of one suite or the other. Based on this, the board came to the conclusion that the stairs themselves are an exit.

Would it be crystal clear to use the definition of exit to argue against the appellant's position of treating that part of the stairway as access of exit rather than exit?

This is from OBC, and I would think NBCC would be similar

 

[tmurray]

Not really. Just having an interior stair, does not immediately make it an exit.

In this specific case, the safest interpretation would be to class the shared stairs as an exit and the dedicated exit stairs as an access to exit (the actual exit being the exterior door at the bottom of the stairs).

 

[sunyaer]

...

In this specific case, the safest interpretation would be ...the dedicated exit stairs as an access to exit (the actual exit being the exterior door at the bottom of the stairs).

But this is what the Appeal Board did not agree with, correct?

 

[tmurray]

Yes. It looks like they required all the stairs to be treated as exits.