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. 15-30-1419

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-30-1419

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-30-1419
Application No.: B 2015-31

 

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. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Jozef Prusak for the resolution of a dispute with Tom Redmond, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the reduced horizontal clearance distance of 2.45 m from the distribution piping to the front property line, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.4. and Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.B. at 1324 Nevrac Drive, City of Burlington, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Jozef Prusak
Homeowner
City of Burlington, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Tom Redmond
Chief Building Official
City of Burlington, Ontario

PANEL

Eric Gunnell, Chair-Designate

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

October 15, 2015

DATE OF RULING

October 15, 2015

APPEARANCES

Jozef Prusak
Homeowner
City of Burlington, Ontario
Applicant

Steve Krizan
Plans Examiner
City of Burlington, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a new Class 4 sewage system, with a treatment unit and a shallow buried trench leaching bed to replace an existing Class 4 system at 1324 Nevarc Drive, City of Burlington, Ontario.

The existing building, including the proposed addition, is a one storey, three bedroom residential dwelling, having a building area of approximately 232 m2 and a total of 23.5 total plumbing fixture units, with a detailed daily design sewage flow of 1,922.57 L/day.

The Applicant received a permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, which resulted in an increase in the total daily design sewage flow. As a result of the construction, the existing sewage system was determined to be inadequate to meet the additional flow requirements of the newly expanded building, resulting in the need to construct a new sewage system.

The system being proposed includes a treatment unit producing level IV quality effluent with a shallow buried trench leaching bed to meet the additional flow requirements, however, the minimum clearance distances outlined in Article 8.2.1.4., Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.B. of Division B of the 2012 Building Code cannot be met.

The construction in dispute relates to the reduced horizontal clearance distance of the distribution piping of the proposed sewage system to the property line.

Article 8.2.1.4., Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.B. of Division B of the 2012 Building Code, prescribe the minimum clearances for distribution piping to various environmental features such as lakes, wells and property lines. The Code requires that the minimum clearance distance for distribution piping to the property line must not be less than 3 m. In this case, due to construction restrictions, the Applicant is proposing a clearance distance of 2.45 m.

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.
8.2.1.6. Clearances for a Class 4 or 5 Sewage System
  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

3. Applicant’s Position

The Applicant submitted that they had received a permit to construct an addition to their existing home. However, on final inspection by the city’s building department, the Applicant was advised that the capacity of the existing on-site sewage system, located at the front of the property, was not sufficient to serve the newly expanded dwelling. However, the Applicant informed the Commission that the existing system, which has been upgraded, is operating with no difficulties.

The Applicant advised that relocating the on-site sewage system was not feasible because of the designated conservation land located at the rear of their property. The Applicant maintained that the area where it is proposed that the tertiary treatment unit and shallow buried trench leaching bed is to be installed is the only area that could accommodate the system. As a result, the Applicant suggested that a 0.55 m reduction in the clearance distance from 3.0 m (per Table 8.2.1.6.B.) from the distribution piping to the property line be accepted.

In response to questions, the Applicant agreed that the issue at dispute before the Commission was to determine whether the 2.45 m horizontal clearance distance from the distribution piping of the proposed shallow buried trench leaching bed to the property line provides sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the Building Code.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the existing residential building has undergone a renovation where an addition has been constructed. As a result of the addition, the capacity of the existing on-site sewage system is not sufficient to serve the newly renovated residence.

The Designate stated that the subject building, including the addition, is a one storey, Group C occupancy building with a gross floor area of 232 m2, three bedrooms, and 23.5 total plumbing fixtures. The Designate also submitted that the total daily design flow rate was 1,922.57 L/day based on Table 8.2.1.3.A. of the Building Code.

The Designate confirmed that the issue at dispute relates to minimum clearances for distribution piping to the property line specified in Table 8.2.1.6.B of the Building Code. The Designate acknowledged that the proposed location of the sewage system appears to be the best area to install the system. He explained that in this location the minimum horizontal clearance distances for distribution piping to the property cannot be achieved. He informed the Commission that the clearance distance from the distribution piping to the property line will be 2.45 m. The Designate submitted that Table 8.2.1.6.B. of the Building Code requires that the distribution piping not be located closer than 3 m to a property line.

The Designate maintained that the minimum setback requirement for distribution piping to the property line set by the Building Code is clear. The Designate stated that the relaxation to this requirement offered by Table 11.5.1.1.C, compliance alternative C99 of the Building Code, is not applicable in this case, as the capacity of the existing system has been increased to accommodate the construction of an addition to the existing residence.

In response to questions, the Designate submitted that the front of the property was a grassy area with no obstacles, presently contains the existing sewage system serving the building, and where in his opinion, no environmental features would be impacted.

In response to questions, the Designate agreed that the only issue at dispute before the Commission was to determine whether the 2.45 m horizontal clearance distance from the distribution piping of the proposed shallow buried trench leaching bed to the property line would be acceptable.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the reduced horizontal clearance distance of 2.45 m from the distribution piping to the front property line, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.4. and Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.B. at 1324 Nevrac Drive, City of Burlington, Ontario, on condition that:

The treatment unit and shallow buried trench leaching bed is designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements as set out in the Building Code, with specific reference to the following provisions: Article 8.7.2.1., Article 8.7.2.2., Sentence 8.7.3.1.(1), Sentence 8.7.3.1.(4) and Table 8.7.3.1., Sentence 8.7.3.2 (2), Sentences 8.7.3.3 (3) and (4) and Article 8.7.6.1.

and on the condition that:

The design and installation of a shallow buried trench is carried out by a person competent in their respective field of work detailed in Article 8.7.1.2. of the Building Code.

6. Reasons

  1. The Commission heard that the proposed shallow buried trench leaching bed will be located in the front of the property, where the existing sewage system is currently located. The Commission also heard that the front of the property is an unobstructed grassy area fronting a municipal road. It is the Commission’s opinion, based on the testimony provided by both parties, that the proposed 2.45 m horizontal clearance distance from the outer distribution piping of the proposed shallow buried trench leaching bed to the property line, will not have an adverse effect on the system nor on the environment by virtue of its proximity to the property line.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 15th day in the month of October in the year 2015 for application number B 2015-31.

Eric Gunnell, Chair-Designate