December 16, 2021
Re: Means of Egress for Fourth Storey Suites
The project building is four storeys in building height with a below grade storage garage. The building is proposed to contain multiple occupancies of Group A, Group D and Group E major occupancy classifications. The building is sprinklered and constructed of non-combustible construction.
The fourth storey is to be demised into two separate suites. Within each suite there will be two independent exit stairwells leading to exterior doors at grade. The stairwells also provide egress/exiting for storeys below the fourth storey.
Applicable Code requirements:
Sentence 184.108.40.206.(8) of Division B of the 2012 British Columbia Building Code.
220.127.116.11.(8) Except as permitted by Sentences 18.104.22.168.(5) and (6), each suite in a floor area that contains more than one suite shall have
a) an exterior exit doorway, or
b) a doorway
i) into a public corridor, or
ii) to an exterior passageway.
Decision being appealed (local authority’s position)
The local authority has determined the proposed egress design does not comply with the prescriptive options provided for in Sentence 22.214.171.124.(8), that being an exterior exit doorway, or a doorway into a public corridor, or an exterior passageway.
If the appellant considers the proposed egress design meets the intent and performance levels of the prescribed options identified in Sentence 126.96.36.199.(8) (acceptable solutions), the local authority considers the proposed design should be submitted as an alternative solution for analysis.
The appellant considers the prescriptive solutions of Sentence 188.8.131.52.(8) do not consider the potential of multiple suites in a floor area which may be provided with the minimum two exits within their space. In the proposed egress design, there is no need to provide a public corridor as each suite is self-contained in terms of exiting, identical to a single suite condition with direct access to exit stairwells.
Appeal Board decision #1876
It is the determination of the Board that the proposed egress design does not comply with the prescriptive options provided in Sentence 184.108.40.206.(8) and concurs with the statement provided by the local authority that the proposed design should be submitted as an alternative solution for analysis.
Reason for decision
The proposed egress design is not identified as a prescribed acceptable solution in Sentence 220.127.116.11.(8). The Board considers some of the justification provided by the appellant for the proposed design could form part of an alternative solution submission.
Chair, Building Code Appeal Board