Xiaolu (Luna) Dong

We submitted Permit Application 26-103571 BLD for 34 Dundonald St, a townhouse originally approved under Permit No. 140337 as a 3-storey building with an intermediate mezzanine level not counted as a storey — lawfully built under Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code. Our proposed work is limited in scope: infilling the existing mezzanine void to extend and enclose the floor. We are not adding any new storeys, not changing the building's footprint, and not altering the primary structure. Building Code Examiner Xiaolu (Luna) Dong issued an OBC Notice dated July 10, 2026, stating that infilling the mezzanine void causes it to lose its mezzanine designation under the OBC, reclassifying the building from 3-storey to 4-storey. This triggers full Part 3 compliance — a complete sprinkler system retrofit, revised structural engineering, and new mechanical and electrical drawings. While we understand the technical basis of the interpretation, the outcome is deeply disproportionate to the actual scope of work. The building was legally constructed and approved. The owner is not building a new structure or adding a floor — they are enclosing an existing opening. The cost and complexity of a full Part 3 upgrade represent an enormous financial burden for what is architecturally a minor interior alteration. The notice offers no guidance on alternative approaches, no mention of an equivalency under Division A Section 2.5, and no invitation to explore a proportional solution. It simply halts the permit. We have been engaged on this file since at least February 2026 and the process has been slow throughout, with little proactive communication from the examiner. We respect the role of the Code and the examiner. However, applying Part 3 in full to an existing, legally-permitted building where the only change is enclosing a mezzanine — with no new storey being constructed — deserves a more collaborative and proportional review. We would encourage anyone in a similar situation to request escalation to a supervisor and explicitly ask about equivalency provisions. Subcategory Ratings: Responsiveness & Timeliness: ⭐⭐ (2/5) — File active since at least February 2026; slow progress and the July 10 OBC Notice was the first substantive written decision. Professionalism: ⭐⭐⭐ (3/5) — Notice is formally prepared, but lacks any attempt to engage with proportionality or alternatives. Transparency: ⭐⭐ (2/5) — The Code citation is stated, but no alternatives, equivalencies, or escalation paths are offered. Effectiveness: ⭐⭐ (2/5) — A rigid interpretation that stops a minor alteration without a workable path forward. Integrity: ⭐⭐⭐ (3/5) — Appears to apply the Code as written; however, no consideration given to the intent of the rules or proportionality of the outcome.