Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2001 > BCC Ruling No. 01-17-810

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 01-17-810

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. No. 01-17-810

IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B. of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99 and 205/00 (the "Ontario Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Gary Maddock, General Manager-Operations, Cango Inc., Burlington, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Dan Mousseau, Director of Building, City of Burlington, Ontario, to determine whether the proposed self-service gas bar with a drive-through window, at 6783 Guelph Line, Part Lot 10, Concession 4 N.S., R.R. # 2, Milton, Ontario, should be considered as a "service station" in accordance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B. of the Ontario Building Code.

APPLICANT
Mr. Gary Maddock, General Manager-Operations
Cango Inc.
Burlington, Ontario

RESPONDENT
Mr. Dan Mousseau
Director of Building
City of Burlington

PANEL
Mr. Bryan Whitehead, Chair

PLACE
Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING
April 12th, 2001

DATE OF RULING
April 12th, 2001

APPEARANCES
Mr. David Greenfield, President
D. Greenfield Associates Ltd.
Milton, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Mr. Paul Nickerson
Building Technologist
Burlington, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. The Applicant

Mr. Gary Maddock, General Manager-Operations, Cango Inc., Burlington, Ontario, has applied for building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 for the purpose of constructing a self-service gas bar and drive through kisok at 6783 Guelph Line, Part Lot 10, Con. 4 N.S., R.R. # 2, Milton, Ontario.

2. Description of Construction

The Applicant is proposing to construct a self-service gas bar with a kiosk containing a drive through window designed for the sale of take-out food items, including donuts, coffee, soft drinks, etc. The use has been classified as a Group E major occupancy. The total area of the building will be 120 m2, with a portion dedicated to the drive through operation. With the exception of coffee, there will be no food preparation on site. The building design incorporates one water closet and a total of 8.5 plumbing fixture units. The gas bar will have two islands and 4 pumps that can service a maximum of eight (8) cars at any one time. There will be a total of two employees in the kiosk, one serving the gas bar patrons and the other providing service for the drive through. The building will be serviced by a private drilled well.

The site characteristics include a slope of 8% with a hardpan depth of 13.5 m and a depth of 10 m to the groundwater table. The soil on which the sewage system will be located consists of the existing clay base with a percolation time estimated to be greater than 50 minutes/centimetre and imported fill providing a percolation time of 8 minutes/centimetre. The facility will operate with a Class 4, trench bed sewage system. According to the Applicant, the total daily design flow will be 3, 324 litres.

3. Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed self-service gas bar and drive through window kiosk should be considered a "service station" for the purpose of calculation of the total daily design flow under Article 8.2.1.3. and Table 8.2.1.3.B. of the Ontario Building Code.

Article 8.2.1.3. requires that, when calculating the total daily design flow for service stations, 950 litres for each water closet, in addition to the highest of the flow that would be generated from either the fuel outlets (at 560 litres per day each) or the number of vehicles served (at 20 litres per day per vehicle). The Code however, does not provide a definition for either service station or fuel outlet, but does stipulate that undefined terms shall have the meaning which is commonly assigned to them in the context in which they are used.

4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code

8.2.1.3. Sewage System Design Flows

  1. For residential occupancies, the total daily design sanitary sewage flow shall be at least the value in Column 2 as determined from Table 8.2.1.3.A. (See Appendix A.)
  2. For all other occupancies, the total daily design sanitary sewage flow shall be at least the value in Column 2 as determined from Table 8.2.1.3.B. (See Appendix A.)
  3. Where a building contains more than one establishment, the total daily design sanitary sewage flow shall be the sum of the total daily design sanitary sewage flow for each establishment.
  4. Where an occupancy is not listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B., the highest of metered flow data from at least 3 similar establishments shall be acceptable for determining total daily design sanitary sewage flow.

Table 8.2.1.3.B. (Cont'd)

Other Occupancies

Forming part of Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2)

Establishments(1)

Volume
(litres)

Service Stations (No vehicle washing)(4)

  1. Per water closet, and

i. Per fuel outlet, or

ii. Per vehicle served)



950
560
20

5. Applicant's Position

The Applicant stated that they are in the process of redeveloping the gas station currently located on site. The proposed self-service gas bar would serve a maximum of eight cars at any one time with an estimated 400 vehicles serviced per day. The Applicant submitted that, while he has agreed to use the Code provision for the food service portion of this development, it is inappropriate to use the calculation for daily design flow generated by the "service station" definition in Table 8.2.1.3.B. He argued that a gas bar is not a service station, since that would imply a more elaborate, full service operation. The flow calculated using the "service station" criteria in the Code far exceeds the expected flow that would be generated from a self-service gas bar use. As a result, the Applicant argued that the highest of the metered flow from three other similar establishments may be used in this instance.

In this regard, the Applicant provided metered readings from two establishments in Milton and one in Burlington that are operating similar gas-bar type uses. This data showed that the other facilities all produced a daily flow well below the level found in the Table. Therefore, the Applicant took the position that, to accurately calculate the flow rate from this proposal, the flow generated from the food service operation should be combined with the flow rate identified by using the data collected from similar area establishments.

6. Respondent's Position

The Respondent submitted that a gas bar, or gas station, is considered a service station and, therefore, Table 8.2.1.3.B. of the Ontario Building Code should be used. While the numbers in the table may appear high, it would be inappropriate to deviate from the approved calculation method which requires that the daily design flow be based on the Table for identified establishments.

7. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that, while this type of facility is considered a service station for the purpose of calculating the total daily design flow under Article 8.2.1.3. and Table 8.2.1.3.B., given the location of the proposed facility and the water meter data provided from similar locations, the total daily design sewage flow may be calculated based on 560 litres per pump stand. Accordingly, the total daily design sewage flow for the gas bar portion of the facility will be 2240 litres per day, plus 950 litres for the washroom. The total daily design sewage flow for the drive through portion of the facility is not in dispute and will be negotiated between the parties based on the contributing area.

8. Reasons

i. The water meter data provided by the Applicant demonstrated that the flows calculated under Table 8.2.1.3.B. for a Service Station at this type of location may be considered excessive if the term fuel outlet refers to the number of cars serviceable at one time. It was demonstrated through this data that the average day water consumption on a monthly basis for three "similar" gas bars was well below the total daily design sewage flow calculated under Table 8.2.1.3.B. using the "fuel outlet" definition.

ii. (ii) The calculated total daily design sewage flow generated by the facility results in a leaching bed requiring in excess of 150 metres of distribution pipe and a pump, syphon or balancing system. This dosing will allow some "balancing" of occasional peak flows generated by short term intense use of the gas bar.



Dated at Toronto this 12th, day in the month of April, in the year 2001 for application number 2001-20.





_________________________________________________________________

Mr. Bryan Whitehead, Chair