Katherine Rentsch

The applicants applied for a building permit for a Class 4 sewage system, which was refused by the Chief Building Official.

They applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

However, a subsequent permit for a different design had already been approved and constructed on the property.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute because there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The applicants sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the denial of a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) serving an existing church.

The municipality denied the permit on the basis that insufficient information was provided to show a Class 4 system could not be constructed.

The Building Code Commission found that due to site constraints, including an existing well, structures, property lines, and the need to maintain parking, the installation of a Class 4 system was impracticable.

The Commission ruled that the Class 5 system provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct a new on-site sewage system for a gas station and convenience store using a reduced daily design flow of 3,500 litres per day, rather than the 6,940 litres per day calculated under the Building Code.

The applicant proposed a phased installation with a water meter to monitor flows.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as there was insufficient information to justify a lower design flow and the proposed flow was not supported by adequate metered flow data from similar establishments.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the installation of a sewage pump chamber.

The issue was whether the horizontal setback distances for treatment units under Part 8 of the Building Code applied to the pump chamber, which was located within 15 metres of a neighbouring well.

The Commission ruled that a pump chamber is not a 'treatment unit' as defined in the Building Code, and therefore the clearance distances in Part 8 do not apply.

The proposed pump chamber was found to provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought a building permit for a new sewage treatment system to service a proposed automotive development, including a dealership and car wash.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the methodology for calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flow.

The applicant argued that the proposed occupancies were not listed in the Building Code and relied on metered data from similar establishments.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the applicant's calculation methods did not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.3 of the Building Code, as calculations could be established using multiple listed occupancies and the provided metered data was insufficient and lacked appropriate peaking factors.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's denial of a building permit to install a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) on a vacant lot for a proposed new cottage.

The applicant argued that a Class 4 system could not be installed due to setback requirements from neighbouring dug wells.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not comply with Article 8.8.1.1 of Division B of the Building Code, as none of the acceptable circumstances for a Class 5 system under Article 8.8.1.2 were met.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to construct an addition to an existing cottage and add plumbing fixtures, which would increase the finished floor area by more than 15%.

The Chief Building Official denied the building permit on the basis that the existing Class 5 sewage system (holding tanks) could not accommodate the expansion under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed construction did not increase the total daily design sewage flow beyond the capacity of the existing holding tanks.

The Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's denial of a building permit to replace a deck.

The permit was denied because the proposed deck would be located over an existing septic tank, failing to meet the minimum 1.5m clearance distance required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the existing septic system had not been compromised by the deck and that the vertical clearance did not hinder maintenance access.

The Commission ruled that the proposed clearance distance provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, on the condition that the area below the deck is not enclosed in the future.

The applicants applied for a building permit to replace a failing sewage system at their restaurant.

The municipality denied the permit, arguing that because the restaurant was located on a highway designated as 'controlled access' by the Ministry of Transportation, the Building Code required a design flow of 400 litres per day per seat.

The applicants argued the restaurant was not a 24-hour rest stop and should be assessed at 125 litres per day per seat.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the applicants, finding that the restaurant was not consistent with a typical rest stop on a 400-series highway and lacked public showers.

The Commission ruled that a design flow of 125 litres per day per seat provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.