Ruling No.: 20-11-1562
Application No.: S-2020-04
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 Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2), 8.2.1.3.(3), 8.2.1.3.(4) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Kevin Vance, for the resolution of a dispute with Martin Cox, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the calculation methods used to determine the total daily design sewage flow for one on-site sewage system, which will serve 3 buildings used for automotive sales and/or servicing, one of which will contain a car wash, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 8.2.1.3.(2), 8.2.1.3.(3), 8.2.1.3.(4) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code at Part of Lots 2 & 3 Concession 1, Commerce Court, Birds Creek Geographic Township of Herschel, Municipality of Hastings Highlands, Ontario.
APPLICANT Kevin Vance
Vance Motors
Bancroft, Ontario
RESPONDENT Martin Cox
Chief Building Official
Municipality of Hastings Highlands, Ontario
PANEL Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate
Judy Beauchamp
Matthew Graham
PLACE Teleconference
DATE OF HEARING May 15, 2020
DATE OF RULING May 15, 2020
APPEARANCES Kevin Vance
Vance Motors, Bancroft, Ontario
The Applicant
Tyler Peters,
Greenview Environmental Management, Bancroft, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Martin Cox
Chief Building Official
Municipality of Hastings Highlands, Ontario
The Respondent
David Stewart
CAO
Municipality of Hastings Highlands, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a new sewage treatment system to service a proposed new development consisting of three buildings:
- A new auto sales/service building and commercial car wash (approx. 2,200 m2)
- A fabric covered vehicle display building (approx. 750 m2)
- An additional future automotive sales and service dealership (approx. 1,200 m2)
The subject property is 6.5 hectares (16 acres) and the portion proposed for development is 1.6 hectares (4 acres.) Water is proposed to be provided by an onsite well.
Although the final plans are not in place for the proposed development, the applicant is seeking a building permit to confirm their methodology of calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flows. Upon agreement by the municipality with the methodology, the project will proceed, and the building design and other technical information related to the project, will be submitted.
The subject property is located on part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1, Commerce Court, Birds Creek, Township of Herschel, Municipality of Hastings Highlands. All buildings are to be located on one parcel of land that would also include the sewage system.
The dispute centers on the methodology of calculating a total daily design sanitary sewage flow for the proposed development and whether or not the method used by the applicant provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.3. of Division B of the Building Code.
Both the Applicant and the Respondent understand that should the flows be determined to be in excess of 10,000 litres per day (lpd), the Commission will not have jurisdiction to make a determination in this matter.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 8.2.1.3. Sewage System Design Flow 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
Establishments(1)
Volume, litres
Office Building(3)
(a) Per employee per 8 hour shift, or
75
Service Stations (no vehicle washing)(3)
(a) Per water closet, and
950
(i) per fuel outlet(4), or
560
(ii) per vehicle served
20
Stores(3)
(a) Per 1.0 m2 of floor area, or
5
(b) Per water closet
1 230
Warehouse
(a) Per water closet, and
950
(b) Per loading bay
150
Column 1
2
Notes to Table 8.2.1.3.B.:
(3) Where multiple calculations of sanitary sewage volume is permitted, the calculation resulting in the highest flow shall be used in determining the design daily sanitary sewage flow.
(4) The number of fuel outlets is considered the maximum number of fuel nozzles that could be in use at the same time.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that he is proposing a new automotive development and retained Greenview Environmental Management to review the proposed sanitary servicing. The development is to be located on a single lot and will include:
A new auto sales and service building, including a car wash (approx. 2,200 m2),
A fabric covered vehicle display building (approx. 750 m2), and
An additional future automotive sales and service dealership (approx. 1,200 m2).
The Agent for the Applicant stated that this project has been in the planning phase since 2017 and the main issue of concern was the methodology for calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flow for the development. It is the Applicant’s position that the occupancies and establishments listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code do not reflect the type of development proposed. Specifically, an automotive dealership and a carwash are not listed in the table. In addition, the agent indicated that they had attempted to calculate the design flows in accordance with similar occupancies listed Table 8.2.1.3.B and felt the flows grossly overestimated the anticipated actual sewage flows. Therefore, the Agent submitted that they looked to other similar establishments to determine the appropriate design flow in accordance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(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.”
They further indicated that no part Table 8.2.1.3.B could be used in conjunction with metered data.
The Applicant and his Agent submitted that they had obtained metered water consumption data from three (3) similar automotive sales and service enterprises in Ontario. The data from two of these establishments was based on monthly metered data, and on bi-monthly data for the third establishment. The Agent also noted the finished area for each establishment and the estimated number of employees. They acknowledged that these establishments are serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewage systems.
The Agent determined the average day flow for each facility and used the highest monthly water record as a peak flow. Based on this information, the Applicant calculated a peak daily sewage flow for the proposed development of 6,214 litres per day (lpd.) A traditional peaking factor for average to maximum day use was not considered.
The Applicant and his Agent stated that the commercial car wash was being designed by JNE Environmental and that the system involved reuse and recirculation of the wastewater resulting in a peak flow of 1,400 lpd.
Based on a flow of 6,214 lpd for the buildings and 1,400 lpd for the car wash facility, the total daily design sewage flow for the development is 7,614 lpd. The Agent noted that this is less than the Building Code maximum limit of 10,000 lpd.
In response to questions the Applicant stated that the service center would see approximately 35 to 40 cars a day. Also, the Agent and Applicant noted that parts of the dealership would be used in a similar manner to an office building and store for car sales.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent indicated that they had been working with the Applicant to confirm the appropriate design flow for the proposed automotive development. The Respondent submitted that he is not in agreement with the methodology used to calculate the design flows and specifically required clarification on the capacity of the system.
The Respondent expressed concern that should the system have a design capacity greater than 10,000 lpd, they would not have jurisdiction and an application would need to be made to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
The Respondent’s position is that at least a portion of the proposal development conforms with the establishments listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B. Therefore, the Applicant should be using the criteria of Sentences 8.2.1.3 (2) and (3) to determine the sum of the applicable flows.
The Respondent further indicated that they had contacted the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Building Code Advisor, who confirmed that there were satisfactory establishments to determine flows for the automotive sales building and service center. They referenced:
Stores (a) per 1.0 m2 of floor area – volume flow 5 litre or
(b) per water closet – volume of flow 1,230 litres
Service Stations (no vehicle washing)
(a) per water closet – volume of flow 950 litres and
(ii) per vehicle served – volume of flow 20 litres
The Respondent did state that for the proposed car wash, the municipality had notified the Applicant and their Agent that it would be acceptable to use the highest metered flow from at least 3 similar establishments in accordance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(4). The Respondent noted that the metered flow data provided was in support of the determination of the total daily design sanitary sewage flow for the dealership/service centre building, and not the carwash itself.
In the opinion of the Respondent, the Applicant should be using the available establishments listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B. to calculate the design flows for each portion of the automotive sales and service buildings, and Sentence 8.2.1.3.(4) for the car wash portion.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the calculation methods used to determine the total daily design sewage flow for the on-site sewage system, which will serve 3 buildings used for automotive sales and/or servicing, one of which will contain a car wash, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 8.2.1.3.(2), 8.2.1.3.(3), 8.2.1.3.(4) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code at Part of Lots 2 & 3 Concession 1, Commerce Court, Birds Creek Geographic Township of Herschel, Municipality of Hastings Highlands, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) 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.
(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.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that although an automotive dealership is not specifically listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B, several of the proposed occupancies are listed such as flows for office buildings, service stations and stores.
It is the Commission’s opinion that calculations could be established by using multiple occupancies listed in table 8.2.1.3.B.
ii) It is the Commission’s opinion that the flows listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B, are considered to be maximum day design flows and flows determined from a monthly average are not suitable for the design of a sewage system, without the use of appropriate peaking factors.
iii) Although the Commission recognizes that car washes are not specifically mentioned in Table 8.2.1.3.B, there was insufficient data provided to support the proposed design flow for the car wash portion. The data provided was not specific to a car wash and did not include data from three separate establishments.
Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that based on the testimony and evidence provided the calculation methods used by to determine the design flow does not sufficiently comply with Article 8.2.1.3. Division B.
It should be noted that this ruling is specific to the facts of this dispute and property and the above decision should not be interpreted as precedent setting.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 15th day in the month of May in the year 2020 for application number S-2020-04
Katherine Rentsch, Chair
Judy Beauchamp
Matthew Graham