Ruling No.: 20-20-1171
Application No.: S-2020-10
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 Richard Earle, for the resolution of a dispute with Scott Richardson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed pump chamber, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. of Division B at 122 Bentley Lake Loop, Bancroft, Ontario.
APPLICANT Richard Earle
Earle Excavating
Coe Hill, Ontario
RESPONDENT Scott Richardson
Chief Building Official
Faraday Township, Bancroft Ontario
PANEL Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate
Judy Beauchamp
Michael Gooch
PLACE Teleconference
DATE OF HEARING October 14, 2020
DATE OF RULING October 14, 2020
APPEARANCES Richard Earle
Owner, Earle Excavating
Coe Hill, Ontario
The Applicant
Scott Richardson
Chief Building Official
Faraday Township, Bancroft Ontario
The Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a new onsite sewage system at 122 Bentley Lake Loop Road near Bancroft, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing seasonal residential dwelling. The existing sewage system components are unknown and deemed to be insufficient. A new sewage system conforming with Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code was proposed. Due to the space and topography constraints of the property, the sewage system design included a pump chamber to lift raw sanitary sewage from the building to the proposed location of the septic tank. A pump chamber external to the house was proposed. A permit was issued by Faraday Township, and construction commenced.
The construction in dispute involves the location of the proposed pump chamber. It is located outside of the building and is within 15 m of the well on the neighbouring property. The dispute centres on whether or not the horizontal setback distances listed in Table 8.2.1.6A under Article 8.2.1.6 apply to pump chambers.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 8.2.1.6 Clearances for a Class 4 or 5 Sewage System
(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
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the permit for the sewage system had been approved with the pump chamber shown in the proposed location. The pump chamber, septic tank and leaching bed were installed according to the permit and inspected by a representative from Faraday Township. During the inspection no concerns were raised on site, however a few days later the applicant was advised by the Respondent that the pump chamber did not meet setback distances to the neighbour’s wells.
The Applicant agrees that the proposed pump chamber is within 15 m of the neighbour’s well, however he submitted that it should not be considered a “treatment unit”. According to the OBC, the definition of a “treatment unit” means a device that provides a specific degree of sanitary sewage treatment to reduce the contaminant load to a given effluent quality. No treatment is expected or proposed of the pump chamber, it is only required to lift sewage to the proposed location of the septic tank and leaching bed. The code is silent on setbacks for pump chambers.
The Applicant described property as follows. The lakefront is to the west. There is a large rock wall estimated to be approximately 8 m in height on the south/east side of the cottage. The property slopes toward the lake i.e. to the west. The neighbour’s well is located approximately 12 m north of the pump chamber.
The Applicant advised that the topography of the property requires a pump chamber since there is insufficient space immediately around the cottage for a sewage system. The pump chamber is located on the west side of the cottage, between the cottage and the property line. The proposed pump chamber does not meet setback distances to the property line or the cottage (structure). The Applicant reiterated his position that horizontal setback distances do not apply to pump chambers. A steep rock wall on the east side of the cottage prevents the pump chamber from being located on the east side of the cottage, where it would exceed 15 m from the neighbours well.
The Applicant submitted that Earle Excavating has installed sewage systems in the area for many years. There are many older waterfront properties in the area that could not be serviced without pump chambers to lift sanitary sewage away from the water to a location where a sewage system can meet all mandatory setback distances. Neighbouring municipalities have never imposed horizontal setbacks for pump chambers.
The Applicant advised that the proposed pump chamber is a sealed concrete tank (300 L/80 US gallon round chamber with 76.2 cm diameter as supplied by Brooklin Concrete) which is not expected to leak. It will be equipped with an audible alarm which would warn of high liquid levels in the tank that might cause it to overflow. The pump in the tank will operate on demand i.e. as sanitary sewage enters the tank it is pumped up the hill. Very little sanitary sewage is expected to be retained in the pump chamber at any time, would be equal to volume in 50 mm discharge line which would drain back to pump chamber.
The Applicant advised that a plumbing permit has not yet been issued for the cottage to revise the interior plumbing. The cottage does not have a basement, but it is the Applicant’s opinion that there is insufficient space underneath the cottage to accommodate a pump chamber. Pump chambers should be free of restrictions in order to ensure that older properties in the area can be serviced with sewage systems that meet Part 8 of the Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that the permit was approved with the pump chamber, however the site plan did not show the location of the proposed neighbour’s well. During the initial inspection the well was not noted. However, after a call from the neighbour the Township investigated again, at which time they found that the setback distance from the pump chamber to the well is less than 15 m.
The Respondent agreed that the well is located approximately 12 m to the north east of the pump chamber. The property slopes to the lake. The Respondent described the property as being on two plateaus, one on the east side by the road where the new sewage system is located and then there is a steep embankment down to the plateau on which the cottage is located. There is access to the second plateau along the northern property boundary where the slope isn’t as steep. The neighbouring cottage is on the same plateau as the subject cottage. Both properties slope toward the lake.
The well is described as a drilled well however a water well record was not obtained. The construction and depth of the well is unknown. The pump chamber is likely over 15 m away from the lake but does not meet setback distance to cottage or to property boundary.
The Respondent agreed that sanitary sewage is not treated in a pump chamber, however the same setbacks should be applied because of objectives and functional statements and to protect public health. The Respondent submitted that the pump chamber has a higher capacity to crack and leak due to the seasonal nature of the cottage. He advised that a plumbing permit had not yet been issued for the cottage. It is his interpretation that the plumbing code “ends” and Part 8 of the Code starts at the pump chamber, therefore the setbacks should apply to the pump chamber.
The Respondent indicated that if the pump chamber was moved under the cottage to a location at least 15 m away from the well that would satisfy Part 8 separation distances for wells. The cottage is constructed on piers and the pump chamber would have the same risk of leaking but meets the setback distances. The Respondent agreed with the Applicant’s estimate of the amount of sanitary sewage that would be retained in the tank at any time. He acknowledged that if the pump chamber is under the building it would not meet the Part 8 setbacks to a “structure”.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed horizontal setback for the exterior concrete pump chamber to a well, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. of Division B of the Building Code at 122 Bentley Lake Loop, Bancroft, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) As per Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. of the Building Code, a Treatment unit means a device that, when designed, installed and operated in accordance with its design specifications, provides a specific degree of sanitary sewage treatment to reduce the contaminant load from that of sanitary sewage to a given effluent quality.
Based on the Building Code’s definition of “treatment unit”, it the Commission’s opinion that a sewage pump chamber is not considered a treatment unit and further, is not considered part of a sewage system. Therefore, the clearance distances outlined in Part 8 are not applicable in this case.
Although the Commission is of the opinion that Part 8 of the Building Code does not apply to the sewage pump chamber in this case, the Commission notes that it may be subject to the provisions of Part 7 of the Building Code. However, the requirements of Part 7 of the Building Code were not in dispute in this matter.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 14th day in the month of October in the year 2020 for application number S-2020-10.
Katherine Rentsch, Chair
Judy Beauchamp
Michael Gooch