Ruling No.: 19-28-1548
Application No.: S-2019-29
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 Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2), and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Debbie and Wayne Seifried, for the resolution of a dispute with Rick Carefoot, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to use a total daily design flow of 125L/day per seat for a restaurant (not 24 hour), for the design flow of a replacement Class 4 sewage system serving an existing restaurant, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code at 317757 Hwy 6&10 RR#4, Owen Sound, Ontario.
APPLICANT Debbie and Wayne Seifried Owners Rockford, Ontario
RESPONDENT Rick Carefoot Chief Building Official Municipality of Meaford, Ontario
PANEL Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate Judy Beauchamp Matthew Graham
PLACE Teleconference
DATE OF HEARING December 5, 2019
DATE OF RULING December 5, 2019
APPEARANCES
Debbie and Wayne Seifried Rockford, Ontario The Applicant
Matthew Nelson GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Tammy Dobie Deputy Chief Building Official Municipality of Meaford, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
Liz Buckton Manager of Development Services Municipality of Meaford, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to install an onsite sewage system and grease interceptors at 317757 Hwy 6&10 RR#4, Owen Sound, Ontario.
The subject building is classified as having a Group C and Group D occupancy. The Applicants own the Rockford Family Restaurant, which is located at the intersection of Grey Road 18 and Highway 6 & 10. The property includes a 58-seat restaurant and a 2 bedroom apartment.
The existing septic system servicing the restaurant is failing and requires repairs. An application was made to the Municipality of Meaford, that was denied based on the classification of the restaurant.
The existing restaurant is serviced with 2 toilets, 2 vanity sinks, a 3 compartment kitchen sink, a handwash sink and a commercial grade dishwasher. The apartment is serviced with a toilet, vanity sink, shower, and kitchen sink.
The flows for the apartment are not in dispute at 1,100 litres per day (lpd), however the flows for the 58-seat restaurant are in dispute. The Commission was advised that the design of the proposed sewage system has not been completed or reviewed, as the parties could not agree on a design flow value.
Table 8.2.1.3. B of Division B of the Building Code sets out the design flow for Food Service Operations. The dispute in this case centers on whether the subject restaurant is considered,
“(a) Restaurant (not 24 hour) 125 lpd per seat; or (c) Restaurant on a controlled access highway – 400 lpd per seat” as per Table 8.2.1.3. B.
More specifically, the dispute for the Commission to determine is whether the proposal to use a total daily design flow of 125L/day per seat for a restaurant (not 24 hour), for the design flow of a replacement Class 4 sewage system serving an existing restaurant, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code.
Both parties are aware that if the Commission finds the total design flow to exceed 10,000 lpd, the Commission will not have jurisdiction.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 8.2.1.3. Sewage System Design Flow partially states:
(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 the total daily design sanitary sewage flow.
Article 8.2.1.3. Sewage System Design Flow, Table 8.2.1.3.B. partially states
Table 8.2.1.3.B. Other Occupancies Forming Part of Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2)
Establishments(1)
Volume, litres
Food Service Operations
Food Service Operations
(a) Restaurant (not 24 hour), per seat
125
(b) Restaurant (24 hour), per seat
200
(c) Restaurant on controlled-access highway, per seat
400
(d) Paper service restaurant, per seat
60
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant explained that they own the Rockford Family Restaurant which is off Highway 6 &10. The building includes a 58-seat restaurant and a 2-bedroom apartment.
The Applicant and his Agent stated that the existing sewage system serving the building was failing, and they had applied to the local municipality for a building permit to upgrade the sewage system. The Applicant advised that the permit application was denied based on the total daily design sanitary sewage flow proposed for the site. He explained that the municipality agreed with the proposed design flow for the residential portion of the building, however, disagreed as to whether the restaurant should be considered a food services operation under:“(a) Restaurant (not 24 hour) 125 lpd per seat” as per Table 8.2.1.3.B.
The Applicant explained that the municipality’s position was that the restaurant should be considered a food service operation under “(c) Restaurant on a controlled access highway – 400 lpd per seat” as per Table 8.2.1.3.B.
The Applicant and his Agent submitted that the 400 lpd/seat flow for a controlled access highway is for restaurants more commonly known as rest stops such as those along 400 series highways. The Agent indicated that from a traffic point of view, a “controlled access highway” typically has entrance and exit ramps in lieu of at grade entrances. The property in question, however, has at grade entrances, as do most properties along Hwy6 & 10.
The Agent indicated that the Ministry of Transportation definitions are problematic as they have various definitions within their manuals including: Arterials, Kings Highways, “fully” controlled access highways and controlled access highways. The Agent submitted that it was his position that the Ministry of Transpiration has developed their own terminology separate from the Ontario Building Code and therefore, is not being appropriately applied in this case.
The Agent reported that he had completed a historic review for the basis for using the 400 lpd per seat design flow and indicated that this flow is consistent with flows suggested for “intercity freeways with showers” from the Ministry of Environment’s Manual of Policy Procedures and Guidelines for Onsite Sewage systems (1982). The Agent noted that there are no showers servicing the existing restaurant.
The Applicant submitted that they had installed a water meter on their property to monitor existing water use. The Agent indicated that recent water use records show flows of approximately 3,000 lpd for the 58-seat restaurant and the 2 bedroom apartment. The Applicant acknowledged that the period of time during which water use was recorded was fairly short, although readings were obtained generally on a daily basis.
The Agent also indicated that there are many restaurants along corridors that the Ministry of Transportation have designated as “controlled access” that have sewage systems that have been designed based on 125 lpd/seat.
The Applicant further indicated that it would be impractical to base the design of the sewage system on the 23,200 lpd as this will result in significant over-design of the sewage system for this project, which will add unnecessary and significant cost.
In response to questions, the Applicant stated that the meter was read daily with the odd day missed. The maximum value recorded was on August 31 with a reading of 3,500 lpd.
The Applicant’s position is that the restaurant’s flow should be calculated based on a 125 lpd per seat. This would result in a total daily design flow of 7,250 L/day for the restaurant portion, which still provides an adequate safety factor when compared with actual water use.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent reported that that the municipality received a permit application for a new Class 4 sewage system to service the building located at 317757 Hwy 6 &10. The Designate explained that that the municipality agreed with the flow values submitted for the apartment portion of the building, which were 1,110 lpd but did not agree with the flows calculated for the restaurant portion of the building and therefore, the permit was denied.
The Designate indicated that the authority having jurisdiction over the road, Ministry of Transportation, have identified Hwy 6 &10 to be a “controlled access highway”. Therefore, in accordance with Table 8.2.1.3.B of the Building Code, for the controlled access highway food service operations, a daily sewage design flow of 400 L/day/seat shall be used to calculate the sewage system’s design flow. The Designate submitted that this would result in a flow of 23,200 lpd for the restaurant and should therefore be referred to the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks.
The Designate further indicated that in the absence of a specific definition of a “controlled access highway” within the Building Code, the municipality must rely on the definition provided by the Ministry of Transportation.
As Hwy 6 &10 is a major transportation corridor servicing the region, the Designate indicated that they would expect that a restaurant fronting on this highway to see visitation not only from local residents, but also from the traveling public. The Designate further indicated that they are aware of another local restaurant experiencing a similar sewage system failure, which they also attributed to high visitation volume. The Designate submitted that they are not comfortable using the 125 lpd per seat based on the increased traffic flow.
The Designate agreed with the Applicant that it would be appropriate to refer the dispute to the Building Code Commission to resolve this interpretation issue.
In summary, the Designate submitted it was the municipality’s position that a flow of 400 lpd per seat should be used to calculate the design flow, in accordance with a food service operation on a controlled access highway.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to use a total daily design flow of 125L/day per seat for a restaurant (not 24 hour), for the design flow of a replacement Class 4 sewage system serving an existing restaurant, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code at 317757 Hwy 6 &10 RR#4, Owen Sound, Ontario
6. Reasons
i) It is the Commission’s opinion that the existing restaurant is not consistent with a typical rest stop that would be found along a controlled access highway, typically considered to be the 400 series highway, or similar.
ii) The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the basis for the 400 lpd per seat design flow was for “intercity freeways with showers” based on the Ministry of Environment’s Manual of Policy Procedures and Guidelines for Onsite Sewage Systems (1982).
Hwy 6 & 10 would not be considered an intercity freeway and further, no showers are provided for public use at the restaurant. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the use of a total daily design flow of 125L/day per seat for the Rockford Family Restaurant provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.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-2019-29
Katherine Rentsch, Chair
Judy Beauchamp
Matthew Graham