BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BUILDING CODE COMMISSION"

Transcription

1 - 1 - Ruling No Application No 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 and of the Regulation 403,as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Ted Antkow, Homeowner, for the resolution of a dispute with Bill Goodale, Chief Building Official, Sewage Systems, Township of Tiny, to determine whether the proposal to relocate the existing leaching bed and install a new litre septic tank intended to remedy an Unsafe Order issued in respect of the existing Class 4 sewage system does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and when considering Part 11 of the Building Code at 305 Concession 11 W, Township of Tiny, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Ted Antkow Homeowner Mississauga, ON Mr. Bill Goodale Chief Building Official C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. PANEL Judy Beauchamp, Vice-Chair Jim Wilkinson Eric Gunnell PLACE Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING September 6, 2007 DATE OF RULING September 6, 2007 APPEARANCES Ted Antkow Homeowner Mississauga, ON The Applicant Bill Goodale Chief Building Official C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd, ON Designate for the Respondent

2 - 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received an Unsafe Order under the Building Code Act, 1992, requiring that a building permit be obtained and that the existing sewage system be replaced at 305 Concession 11 W, Township of Tiny, Ontario. The subject building is described as a one and a half storey, two bedroom, seasonal cottage, having a building area of approximately 64 m 2. The dwelling is served by a private dug well and has a total of 7.5 plumbing fixture units. The total daily design flow rate for this residential building is litres per day. The site is described as sloping from east to west and the existing native soil, which is described as sand, provides a percolation time of approximately five to ten minutes per centimetre. The construction in dispute relates to the proposal by the Applicant to upgrade the existing Class 4 sewage system by relocating the existing leaching bed and replacing the existing septic tank with a new litre septic tank. The subject sewage system has been in existence for approximately years. The existing sewage system consists of an litre septic tank connected to an inground leaching bed. The absorption trenches of the leaching bed consist of two runs of three metre distribution pipe. The issue at dispute pertains to whether the Applicant s proposal to replace the existing septic tank and relocate the leaching bed addresses the unsafe situation and provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles and when considering Part 11 of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Clearances for a Class 4 or 5 Sewage System (1) Except as provided in Sentences (1) and (2), a treatment unit shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances as set out in Table A. (2) Except as provided in Sentences (1) and (2), a distribution pipe shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table B. and these distances shall be increased when required by Sentence (9). (3) Except as provided in Sentences (1) and (2), a holding tank shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table C Absorption Trenches (1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), absorption trenches shall be, (a) approximately the same length and not more than 30 m in length, (b) at least 500 mm and not more than mm in width, (c) at least 300 mm and not more than 900 mm in depth, (d) centred at least mm apart, (e) at least 900 mm at all points on the bottom of the absorption trench, or 900 mm from the surface of a filter bed above the high ground water table, rock or soil with a percolation time greater than 50 minutes, and (f) backfilled, after the installation of the distribution pipe with leaching bed fill,

3 - 3 - so as to ensure that after the leaching bed fill settles, the surface of the leaching bed will not form any depressions. (2) Absorption trenches constructed as shallow buried trenches shall be (a) approximately the same length and not more than 30 m in length, (b) at least 300 mm and not more than 600 mm in width, (c) at least 300 mm and not more than 600 mm in depth, (d) centred at least mm apart, (e) at least 900 mm at all points on the bottom of the absorption trench above the high ground water table or rock, and (f) backfilled, after the installation of the distribution pipe with leaching bed fill, so as to ensure that after the leaching bed fill settles, the surface of the leaching bed will not form any depressions. Part 11 Renovation (Please see Part 11 of the Building Code) 3. Applicant s Position The Applicant provided the Building Code Commission (the Commission ) with a brief overview of the existing sewage system and outlined the history of the dispute between the parties. He stated that the subject building is a seasonal family dwelling that has been in existence for approximately 55 years. The Applicant reported that he was proposing to install a new septic tank and would be willing to relocate the existing leaching bed, if necessary. He indicated that typical lot sizes in the area are 15 m (50 ft.) wide by 38 m (125 ft.) deep. He added that relocating one part of the sewage system in order to meet the minimum setback requirements to the adjacent lake would negatively impact the minimum setback requirements to his well, five adjacent neighbouring wells, the structure and the property line. The Applicant advised that it is his belief that this proposal meets the intent of Part 11 of the Building Code. He stated that by replacing the septic tank and relocating the leaching bed, he is improving the performance level of the existing sewage system. In response to questions regarding the depth to the groundwater table, the Applicant advised that when he was requested to excavate as part of the inspection process, he noted that the depth was approximately 700 mm to the groundwater table. The Applicant asserted that he is putting forth his best effort to remedy the situation. He maintained that he complies with the requirements of Article He noted that Sentence (1) states 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 Articles or He indicated that this Code reference clearly indicates that there is some room for leniency regarding the minimum clearance distances. In summation, the Applicant declared that he believes the evidence presented to the Commission supports his claim that he meets the provisions of Articles and , especially when considering Part 11 of the Building Code, and as such the Commission should find for sufficiency of compliance in this matter.

4 Respondent s Position The Respondent reported that this matter has been on-going for four years. He stated that, in his opinion, both the existing situation and the proposal put forth by the Applicant are unsafe. He asserted that as the Chief Building Official for Sewage Systems for the Township of Tiny, it is his duty to prevent the contamination of the groundwater from any new or existing sewage systems. The Respondent maintained that the existing sewage system, in his opinion, is unsafe. Further, he added that the proposal of the Applicant to install a new septic tank and possibly relocate the leaching bed does not address the concerns outlined in the Unsafe Order. As such, it is his opinion that the proposed solution still results in an unsafe condition. In response to questions regarding depth to the groundwater table, the Respondent indicated that he believed the depth to the high groundwater table to be about 500 mm. He added that a site inspection also revealed the depth to the standing water table to be approximately 600 mm. He added that the distribution pipe is approximately 400 mm above the standing water table and 100 mm above the high water table. In addition, the Respondent noted that the location of the existing distribution pipe provides less than the minimum clearance distance to five surrounding wells. The Respondent maintained that the Applicant s proposal does not address the concerns outlined in the Unsafe Order that has been issued. He reiterated that the Applicant s proposal does not meet the minimum requirements stipulated in Sentences (1) and (2) of the Building Code with respect to clearance distances nor does the proposal meet the requirements of Clause (1)(b) for minimum length of distribution pipe. He claimed that the sewage system has not been maintained and operated in accordance with Section 8.9 of the Building Code. The Respondent summarized his position by reiterating that it is his duty, as Chief Building Official of Sewage Systems, to enforce the Building Code and to ensure the health and safety of the public. He declared that neither the existing sewage system nor the proposed sewage system meet the requirements of the Building Code and do not remedy the issues raised in the Unsafe Order. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to relocate the existing tile bed and install a new litre septic tank intended to remedy an Unsafe Order issued in respect of the existing Class 4 sewage system does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and when considering Part 11 of the Building Code at 305 Concession 11 W, Tiny Township, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) The proposal does not remedy the concerns identified in the Unsafe Order nor does it provide sufficiency of compliance with Clause (1)(e) of the Building Code, which requires absorption trenches to be located so that the bottom of the trench is not less than 900 mm above the high groundwater table, rock or soil with a percolation time greater than 50 minutes per centimetre.

5 - 5 - ii) The Commission recognizes that the subject sewage system has been in existence for at least five years and therefore Part 11 of the Building Code applies in this instance. However, even when considering the compliance alternatives outlined in Part 11 of the Code, in the opinion of the Commission the health and safety concerns identified by the Respondent in the Unsafe Order that was issued have not been addressed.

6 - 6 - Dated at Toronto this 6 th day in the month of September in the year 2007 for application number Judy Beauchamp, Vice Chair Jim Wilkinson Eric Gunnell