Sent this letter to everyone in my strata, the city of Coquitlam Engineering and Fire Department, and the Mayor. Cant attach the PDFs but use your imagination..... Dear Owners of NW137: For reference, note the codes stated in the following text, at the bottom of the email. The lock on the outside of my basement door (see image 451), which prohibits exit from within, is clearly an obstruction and a clear safety hazard in violation of section 9.9.5.5.2. As such, I demand that the outer padlock pictured in IMG 451 be removed IMMEADIATELY or I shall be forced to do so myself. I call your attention to section 9.9.9.2: The requirement of having two exits. Currently, my basement has two possible exits. The first is the blocked egress through the exterior door. The other is the one that goes up one story (per 9.9.9.1) to the main floor of my unit. (See attached pictures showing the access from the main floor of my unit.) While that is a legal exit for me to use, it is not for anyone else as it requires travel through my already agreed and defined non-public area that is my suite. For reference, I have included drawings of the basement as sheets A101 and a102 detailing the layout of my basement. The top right of the sheet shows the egress via the basement door to the outside, the stairs go up to the main floor of my suite. Clearly, any plans to subdivide part or all of the basement from the upper portion of my suite would actually further restrict egress. Thus, in order to secure my suite (as is my charter right), the only compliant place to put a security lock would be on the basement door to the outside. A lock on the upstairs door (or any theoretical separation point) would further limit the means of egress if I locked it from the inside area of the upstairs as it would further endanger anyone that would be down there in the event of a fire. If a lock was placed on the basement side it would not allow me to have ability to maintain and service my aging furnace or check for security threats (the bathroom being an obvious location for people of questionable integrity to want to gather) nor would it allow for egress from the basement for anyone else as it would still go directly through the main door of my suite. Furthermore, insistence that the area is somehow common space is in direct contradiction to how the space was built. The area is clearly not built as common area as it does not meet the requirements of section 9.10 for fire protection as there is no fire separation whatsoever, nor is there any sound separation whatsoever as required under section 9.11. As well, the area is heated by my heating system (including my furnace which is located in the centre core of my basement) whereas a common area would have its own HVAC system. Additionally, the bathroom (of which a copy of the plumbing permit that predates the creation of the strata plans notes is a bathroom for unit 301) shares the same plumbing and hot water with the rest of the suite. I would remind everyone that the basement as a whole has it’s own building permit (attached 1964 building permit, the original is with City of Coquitlam) that predates the creation of the strata plans, which through either incompetence or outright fraud failed to omit 860 square feet of habitable area that were clearly purposely built as a portion of 301 Marathon court. As such, I demand control of the basement door in order to maintain my safety and security. In the interim I will be locking the basement door from the inside in order to at least maintain my security. If the strata disputes the impartiality of my comments they are free to have a certified building inspector or similar certified professional take their own measurements and comment on my interpretation of the code. As I have mentioned in previous emails, if the city wants to send their own inspectors either to check for code violations or for fire code violations, as I have already asked, you are free (and encouraged) to do so. Yours truly, Ron Byrne, P.Eng. Owner, 301 Marathon Court The following are the relevant referenced sections of the BC Building Code. References to sections 9.10 and 9.11 refer to the entire section: 9.9.5.5.2: Except as provided in Sentence (3), no obstructions, such as counter gates, that do not meet the requirements for exit doors, shall be placed in a required means of egress from a floor area or part of a floor area unless an alternate unobstructed means of egress is provided adjacent to and plainly visible from the restricted egress. 9.9.9. Egress from Dwelling Units 9.9.9.1. Travel Limit to Exits or Egress Doors 1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (3), every dwelling unit containing more than 1 storey shall have exits or egress doors located so that it shall not be necessary to travel up or down more than 1 storey to reach a level served by a) an egress door to a public corridor, enclosed exit stair or exterior passageway, or b) an exit doorway not more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level. 2) Where a dwelling unit is not located above or below another suite, the travel limit from a floor level in the dwelling unit to an exit or egress door may exceed 1 storey where that floor level is served by an openable window a) providing an unobstructed opening of not less than 1 m in height and 0.55 m in width, and b) located so that the sill is not more than i) 1 m above the floor, and ii) 7 m above adjacent ground level. 3) The travel limit from a floor level in a dwelling unit to an exit or egress door may exceed 1 storey where that floor level has direct access to a balcony. 9.9.9.2. Two Separate Exits 1) Except as provided in Sentence 9.9.7.3.(1) where an egress door from a dwelling unit opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway it shall be possible from the location where the egress door opens onto the corridor or exterior passageway to go in opposite directions to 2 separate exits unless the dwelling unit has a second and separate means of egress. NC2010 2010-01-01 R1 1) Except as provided in Sentence 9.9.7.3.(1)where an egress door from a dwelling unit opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway it shall be possible from the location where the egress door opens onto the corridor or exterior passageway to go in opposite directions to 2 separate exits unless the dwelling unit has a second and separate means of egress. 9.9.9.3. Shared Egress Facilities 1) A dwelling unit shall be provided with a second and separate means of egress where an egress door from the dwelling unit opens onto a) an exit stairway serving more than one suite, b) a public corridor i) serving more than one suite, and ii) served by a single exit, c) an exterior passageway i) serving more than one suite, ii) served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and iii) more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level, or d) a balcony i) serving more than one suite, ii) served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and iii) more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level. NC2010 2010-01-01 R1 9.9.9.3. Shared Egress Facilities 1) A dwelling unitshall be provided with a second and separate means of egress where an egress door from the dwelling unit opens onto a) an exit stairway serving more than one suite, b) a public corridor i) serving more than one suite, and ii) served by a single exit, c) an exterior passageway i) serving more than one suite, ii) served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and iii) more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level, or d) a balcony i) serving more than one suite, ii) served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and iii) more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level. 9.9.10. Egress from Bedrooms 9.9.10.1. Egress Windows or Doors for Bedrooms 1) Except where the suite is sprinklered, each bedroom or combination bedroom shall have at least one outside window or exterior door openable from the inside without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge and without the removal of sashes or hardware. (See Article 9.5.1.2. and Appendix A.) 2) The window referred to in Sentence (1) shall a) provide an unobstructed opening of not less than 0.35 m2 in area with no dimension less than 380 mm, and b) maintain the required opening during an emergency without the need for additional support. (See Appendix A.) 3) Where a window required in Sentence (1) opens into a window well, a clearance of not less than 760 mm shall be provided in front of the window. (See Appendix A.) 4) Where the sash of a window referred to in Sentence (3) swings towards the window well, the operation of the sash shall not reduce the clearance in a manner that would restrict escape in an emergency. 5) Where a protective enclosure is installed over the window well referred to in Sentence (3), the enclosure shall be openable from the inside without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge of the opening mechanism
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:22:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015