Ruling No.: 19-27-1547
Application No.: S-2019-26
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 Article 8.2.1.6. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Brian Arbique, for the resolution of a dispute with Travis Toms, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed clearance distance from the existing septic tank to the newly constructed deck, provides sufficiency of with Sentence Article 8.2.1.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 43 Oakridge Drive, North Kawartha, Ontario.
APPLICANT Brian Arbique
Brian Abique Consulting
North Kawartha, Ontario
RESPONDENT Travis Toms
Chief Building Official
Township of North Kawartha, Ontario
PANEL Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate
Judy Beauchamp
Mathew Graham
PLACE Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING December 5, 2019
DATE OF RULING December 5, 2019
APPEARANCES Brian Arbique, Brian Arbique Consulting
North Kawartha, Ontario
The Applicant
Jackie Star
Agent for the Applicant
Travis Toms
Chief Building Official
Township of North Kawartha, Apsley, Ontario
The Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a deck at 43 Oakridge Drive, North Kawartha, Ontario.
The Applicant owns the property at 43 Oakridge Drive located Stony Lake and has applied for a building permit to replace a large deck. However, the existing septic tank servicing the cottage is located beneath the deck and the Applicant’s permit was denied on the basis that the proposed structure would not meet the minimum clearance distance required by the Building Code.
The subject building is a 2-storey cottage/home with a finished area of 241 m2, 4 bedrooms and 29.5 fixture units. The existing cottage is serviced with a Class 4 sewage system, which includes a septic tank and leaching bed. Water to service the cottage comes from Stony Lake.
The deck in question is supported by posts and is approximately 2.7 m (9ft) above the ground surface. The distance from the septic tank to the deck posts is less then the minimum code requirement of 1.5 m.
The dispute between the two parties centers on whether or not the clearance distance between the new deck and the septic tank of the existing Class 4 sewage system provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. (1) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 8.2.1.6 Clearances for a Class 4 or 5 Sewage System, partially states
(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 as set out in Table 8.2.1.6 A.
Table 8.2.1.6.A
Minimum Clearance Distances for Treatment Units
Forming Part of Sentence 8.2.1.6(1)
Item
Column 1
Object
Column 2
Minimum Clearance, m
Structure
1.5
Well
15
Lake
15
Pond
15
Reservoir
15
River
15
Spring
15
Stream
15
Property Line
3
(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)
Object
Minimum Clearance, m
Structure
5
Well with a watertight casing to a depth of at least 6 m
15
Any other well
30
Lake
15
Pond
15
Reservoir
15
River
15
Spring not used as a source of potable water
15
Stream
15
Property Line
3
Column 1
2
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that he purchased the cottage in October of 2016 and in the spring of 2019 elected to upgrade the deck on the lake side of the cottage. Due to several structural issues, it was necessary to replace the entire deck. The deck is raised approximately 2.7 m above ground surface.
In the process of obtaining a permit for the deck, it became apparent to the Applicant that the existing septic tank was located beneath the proposed deck. The Applicant indicated that although the septic tank satisfies the 1.5 m clearance to the cottage itself, this distance is not compliant with either the old deck or the proposed deck structure.
The existing sewage system was installed in 1995 and the Applicant reported that the tank has been pumped out without issue since that time, given the vertical clearance of the existing and proposed deck over the tank.
The Applicant explained that the municipality required the septic tank and leaching bed be relocated, in order to meet the required setbacks of the Building Code. However, the Applicant argued that the existing septic system is operating properly, and it would be a significant cost to relocate the sewage system, given the lack of access to the rear yard.
The Applicant indicated that the upgrade to the deck is not an expansion of the cottage, but rather an upgrade to repair structural issues with the existing deck. Although the new deck will not meet the prescribed clearance distance, neither did the previous deck, and it did not interfere with the maintenance of the septic tank.
The Applicant indicated that the deck is 2.7 m (9 ft) above the ground surface and neither the posts supporting the deck, nor the deck itself interfere with accessibility of the septic tank for maintenance purposes. Furthermore, the Applicant maintained that the new deck does not reduce the performance level of the existing sewage system and does not overhang the leaching bed.
In response to questions, the Applicant indicated that he did not know the clearance distance between the deck and the distribution pipe in the leaching bed. The sewage system had been constructed in 1995 and he was not sure of the exact location.
The Applicant also indicated that there is no access riser for the septic tank. The Applicant explained that the lid is below the ground surface, but the tank has been pumped out and no issues with access or pumping were encountered.
The Applicant’s position is that although the existing deck does not meet the setback distance in Article 8.2.1.6, it does not impact the operation of the sewage system and is requesting approval. In response to questions, the Applicant indicated that there was no plan to enclose the area below the deck in the future. The Applicant also indicated that the cottage does not have a basement or foundation drain.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent’s position is that the proposed deck does not meet the required minimum setback distances as required in Sentence 8.2.1.4.(1) and Tables 8.2.1.6.A and 8.2.1.6.B of the OBC.
The Respondent indicated that the Applicant had applied for a building permit for the deck replacement. He noted that the original deck had been built without a permit. The Respondent explained that Township staff subsequently met on site with the Applicant and they reviewed the clearance distances to the existing sewage system. It was apparent that the existing and proposed deck would be over the existing septic tank, and would not meet the required clearance distances as mandated by Table 8.2.1.6.A.. Specifically, the clearance distance from the existing tank to a proposed deck post was of concern. The Respondent indicated that the deck post could not be moved for structural reasons. As a result of this, the building inspector reviewed the options with the owner for relocating the septic tank and potentially the sewage system.
The Respondent acknowledged that the existing tank meets the required separation distance to the existing cottage foundation wall, and that the vertical clearance distance between the ground surface and the deck does not hinder access to the tank for maintenance purposes. In response to questions, the Respondent indicated that he had no health related concerns to the location of the deck over the existing septic tank, and that the situation would be not worse than it had been, as the deck and tank would be in the same locations He also acknowledged that the existing septic tank has not been compromised by the construction of the deck.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed clearance distance from the existing septic tank to the newly constructed deck, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence Article 8.2.1.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 43 Oakridge Drive, North Kawartha, Ontario on condition that:
a) the area below the deck is not enclosed at any time in the future, as this would limit access to the tank and could limit air flow over the tank, creating a potentially poorly ventilated area.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the replacement of the deck does not alter the performance of the existing septic tank and sewage system.
The Commission heard evidence that the existing tank meets the required clearance distance to the cottage.
The Commission also heard that the existing septic system has not been compromised by the construction of the deck.
Based on the evidence and the above noted condition, it is the opinion of the Commission that the new deck provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence Article 8.2.1.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
It should be noted that this ruling is specific to the facts of this dispute and property and the above reasons should not be interpreted as precedent setting statements or rulings.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 5th day in the month of December in the year 2019 for application number S-2019-26
Katherine Rentsch, Chair
Judy Beauchamp
Mathew Graham