Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2015 > BCC Ruling No. 15-29-1418

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-29-1418

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-29-1418
Application No.: S 2015-24

 

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.

AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 8.2.1.4. and 8.2.1.6., and Tables 8.2.1.6.A. and 8.2.1.6.B. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mike Lourenco, for the resolution of a dispute with Randy Charlton, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the clearance distance between the proposed roofed patio and septic tank of an existing sewage system, sufficiently complies with Articles 8.2.1.4. and 8.2.1.6., and Tables 8.2.1.6.A. and 8.2.1.6.B. of Division B of the Building Code at 420 Mines Road, Caledonia, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mike Lourenco
Home Owner
Caledonia, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Randy Charlton
Chief Building Official
Haldimand County, Ontario

PANEL

Eric Gunnell, Chair-Designate

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

October 15, 2015

DATE OF RULING

October 15, 2015

APPEARANCES

Mike Lourenco
Home Owner
Caledonia, Ontario
Applicant

Thomas Chmieleck
Stoney Creek, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Randy Charlton
Chief Building Official
Haldimand County, Ontario
Respondent

Dean Stewart
Deputy Chief Building Official
Haldimand County, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a stone patio and a roof structure at 420 Mines Road, Caledonia, Ontario.

The subject building is an existing single family dwelling served by a Class 4 sewage system.

The stone patio and roof structure are proposed to be located at the rear of the existing dwelling, where the Class 4 sewage system is located. The original proposed roof structure would have covered the existing septic tank and the stone patio, and a portion of the Class 4 sewage system’s distribution piping.

As a result, the technical dispute for the Commission to determine relates to whether the clearance distance between the proposed stone patio and roof structure from the sewage system’s leaching bed, distribution piping and septic tank, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The Building Code requirements in dispute are Article 8.2.1.4. “Clearances”, Article 8.2.1.6. “Clearances for a Class 4 Sewage System”, Table 8.2.1.6.A “Minimum Clearances to a Treatment Unit” and Table 8.2.1.6.B “Minimum Clearances for Distribution Piping” of Division B of the 2012 Building Code.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

8.2.1.4. Clearances
  1. (1) Unless it can be shown to be unnecessary, where the percolation time is 10 minutes or greater, the location of all components within a sewage system shall be in conformance with the clearances listed in Article 8.2.1.5. or 8.2.1.6.
  2. (2) Unless it can be shown to be unnecessary, where the percolation time is less than 10 minutes, the clearances listed in Articles 8.2.1.5. and 8.2.1.6. for wells, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, rivers, springs or streams shall be increased to compensate for the lower percolation time.
  3. (3) No building shall be constructed closer to any part of a sewage system than the clearances listed in Article 8.2.1.5. or 8.2.1.6.
  4. (4) If more than one sewage system is located on a lot or parcel of land, there shall be no overlap of any part of the systems.
8.2.1.6. Clearances for a Class 4 or 5 Sewage System
  1. (1) Except as provided in Sentences 8.2.1.4.(1) and (2), a treatment unit shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table 8.2.1.6.A.

Table 8.2.1.6.A.
Minimum Clearances for Treatment Units
Forming Part of Sentence 8.2.1.6.(1)

Item

Column 1

Column 2

 

Object

Minimum Clearance, m

1.

Structure

1.5

2.

Well

15

3.

Lake

15

4.

Pond

15

5.

Reservoir

15

6.

River

15

7.

Spring

15

8.

Stream

15

9.

Property Line

3

  1. (2) Except as provided in Sentences 8.2.1.4.(1) and (2), a distribution pipe shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table 8.2.1.6.B. and these distances shall be increased when required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11).

Table 8.2.1.6.B.
Minimum Clearances for Distribution Piping
Forming Part of Sentence 8.2.1.6.(2)

Item

Column 1

Column 2

 

Object

Minimum Clearance, m

1.

Structure

5

2.

Well with a watertight casing to a depth of at least 6 m

15

3.

Any other well

30

4.

Lake

15

5.

Pond

15

6.

Reservoir

15

7.

River

15

8.

Spring not used as a source of potable water

15

9.

Stream

15

10.

Property Line

3

  1. (3) Except as provided in Sentences 8.2.1.4.(1) and (2), a holding tank shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table 8.2.1.6.C.

3. Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant had received a permit to construct an addition to their existing home. However, their permit to construct a roof covered patio attached to the rear of their home was denied because both the existing septic tank and a portion of the septic distribution piping, serving the residence would be covered by the proposed roof structure and as a result, would not meet the minimum clearance distances set out in the Building Code.

The Agent advised the Commission that the permit drawings, which were consequently denied by the municipality, were for a much larger patio and roof structure. The Agent explained that the Applicant, who has since reconsidered the building plans, has revised the drawings illustrating a substantial reduction in building area of both the patio and roof structure.

As a result of reducing the proposed building area, the Agent submitted the patio and roof structure will no longer cover the existing tile bed and further, the roof structure will only cover the septic tank, which in his opinion will not negatively impact the performance or maintenance of the sewage system.

In support of his proposal, the Agent provided the Commission with an independent opinion signed and sealed by a professional engineer, which indicated that the paving stone patio would be acceptable and functional provided appropriate solid square concrete or round plastic risers, equipped with removal lids to facilitate pump outs, are placed on top for the septic tank cleanout ports. Additionally, the engineer’s opinion provided that if the patio were to be constructed with a slope of 2 % to allow storm water runoff and prevent pooling, the patio would be acceptable and functional. The Agent maintained that as the Applicant is willing to construct the patio in accordance with the engineer’s recommendations, there would be no negative impacts on the existing sewage system.

In response to questions, the Agent submitted that the posts proposed to hold the roof structure are well away from the septic tank and neither the posts nor the height of the roof structure will interfere with accessing or maintaining the septic tank.

In response to questions, the Applicant indicated that the roofed patio will not be enclosed.

The Agent concluded that in his opinion, the construction of the roofed patio, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Respondent submitted that on April 10, 2015, the Applicant applied for a building permit to construct an addition above the garage, and to construct a stone patio and roof structure. The Respondent explained that the initial building permit drawings showed that the proposed roofed patio would be 111 m2 which would cover the existing septic tank and partially cover the tile bed serving the existing single family dwelling. Consequently, the Respondent stated that the permit for the roofed patio was denied, while the portion of the permit for the addition to the garage was approved.

The Respondent maintained that the initial permit drawings were not in compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.4.(3), Tables 8.2.1.6.A, Table 8.2.1.6.B related to clearance distances from a sewage system and Article 8.7.2.1. related to the protection of a leaching bed as well as, Article 8.9.3.2. related to general maintenance requirements for a sewage system. The Respondent explained that by covering the existing tank and tile bed, the functionality of the sewage system would be compromised and would impair the evaporation and transpiration of water from the tile bed.

The Respondent advised the Commission that revised drawings containing a reduced roofed patio area had not been reviewed or seen by the municipality until such time as they were submitted by the Applicant as part of their supporting documentation for this hearing. The Respondent submitted that the municipality has since reviewed the revised drawings.

The Respondent pointed out that although the revised drawings indicate that the proposed roofed patio area will be reduced from 111 m2 to 81 m2 and no longer cover the septic bed, although the existing septic tank will still be covered by the roof structure. The Respondent argued that the revised proposal for the roofed patio is still not in compliance with the Building Code because in his opinion, covering the septic tank, and by providing only a 0.5 m clearance from the roof to the septic tile bed, is not be permitted by Sentence 8.2.1.4.(3) and Table 8.2.1.6.A. Further, the setback to the tile bed distribution piping still does not meet the requirements of Table 8.2.1.6.B of the Code. As a result, the Respondent submitted it is the municipality’s position that the proposed roofed patio, even with the reduced roof area does not comply with the Building Code’s requirements for clearance distances to a septic tank or tile bed distribution piping.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the clearance distance between the proposed roofed patio and the septic tank and distribution piping of an existing sewage system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.4. and Article 8.2.1.6. and Tables 8.2.1.6.A. and B. at 420 Mines Road, Caledonia, Ontario on condition that:


  1. The stone patio is constructed with a 2% slope away from the septic tank to allow storm water runoff and prevent pooling, and

  2. solid square concrete or round plastic risers, equipped with removable lids to facilitate pump outs, are placed on top of the septic tank cleanout ports.

 

6. Reasons

  1. Based on the conditions above, along with the evidence and testimony provided, it is the Commission’s opinion that the clearance distances being provided to the existing septic tank and the tile bed distribution piping, as a result of construction of the roofed patio, will not adversely impact the performance of the septic tank or septic field, nor will existing septic tank or septic field adversely impact the new roofed patio.

  2. The Commission heard testimony that the subject roofed patio will not be enclosed.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 15th day in the month of October in the year 2015 for application number B 2015-24.

Eric Gunnell, Chair-Designate