BCAB #1223 - Access for Disabled Persons to Second Storey less than 600 m2 - Clause

October 23, 1990

BCAB #1223

Re: Access for Disabled Persons to Second Storey less than 600 m2 - Clause

Project Description

A Group A Division 2 major occupancy in a building of two storeys in building height. The first storey contains washrooms, showers, and laundry for the use of boaters at an existing marina and also contains a storage area. The second storey, which is on more than one level, is a licensed marine pub. There are no washrooms on the second storey so patrons would use the washrooms on the first storey. There is also a mezzanine containing a residential suite for the transient public.

Reason for Appeal

Access to the second storey for disabled persons has not been provided.

Appellant's Position

The appellant contends that Clause exempts the second storey from requirements for access for the disabled because it is clearly less than 600 m2 and the building is only two storeys high.

Building Official's Position

The building official contends that for the purposes of Section 3.7 the mezzanine is a storey. Therefore, the building contains three storeys and does not qualify for exemption from access to the second storey under Clause He maintains that Clause does not refer to "building height" and this was deliberate. Furthermore there is a comment in the Section 3.7 Handbook which points out that a mezzanine is a storey even though it may not be a storey in "building height."

Appeal Board Decision #1223

Clause is intended to exempt small second storeys or basements in buildings of two storeys from the access requirements of Section 3.7.

The Board considers that the definition of the word "storey" in Part 1 clearly includes mezzanines and as such the building in question contains three storeys for the application of the requirements contained in Section 3.7. Section 3.7 requires access for persons with disabilities to all storeys of buildings with three or more storeys.

The Board agrees that the building in question is only two storeys in "building height" for the purpose of building classification as permitted in Sentence but Clause does not use the term storeys in this context. The Board considers that Section 3.7 was intended to include mezzanines and the wording of Clause is deliberate in it's use of the word storey. Neither Section 3.7 nor the definition of "storey" use the word mezzanine therefore one is not directed to the definition of mezzanine or Sentences to (6) which exempt certain mezzanines from consideration as storeys for the purpose of building height determination.

(In other words a "two storey building" may actually contain 3 storeys of which one is a mezzanine which does not affect building height determination.)

George R. Humphrey, Chair