Citation: Dhesi v. Poupart 2021 ONBCC 04
Ruling No.: 21-04-1178
Application No.: S-2020-25
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) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Jasbir Singh Dhesi, for the resolution of a dispute with Garry Poupart, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to use a reduced daily design flow for the design of a new on-site sewage system, 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 6100 County Road 23, Bainsville, Ontario.
APPLICANT Jasbir Singh Dhesi
2592765 Ontario Inc.
Brampton, Ontario
RESPONDENT Garry Poupart
Chief Building Official
Township of South Glengarry, Lancaster, Ontario
PANEL Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate
Judy Beauchamp
Michael Gooch
PLACE Microsoft Team Virtual meeting
DATE OF HEARING February 2, 2021
DATE OF RULING February 2, 2021
APPEARANCES
Jasbir Singh Dhesi
2592765 Ontario Inc., Brampton, Ontario
The Applicant
Francois Elie
Lascelles Eng. & Associates Ltd,
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Manon Rodrigue,
Lascelles Eng. & Associates Ltd,
Hawkesbury, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Siegfried Rausch
Project Manager
Agent for the Applicant
Garry Poupart
Chief Building Official
Township of South Glengarry, Lancaster, Ontario
The Respondent
Michael Madden
Part 8 Inspector for Township of South Glengarry,
Lakeside Green Environmental Consulting
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 onsite sewage system to service a new gas station and convenience store at 6100 County Road 23 (also know as Curry Hill Road), in Bainsville, Township of South Glengarry.
The subject building is a new one-story convenience store with an area of approximately 180 m2 to service a gas station with 9 fuel outlets.
The subject property is approximately 6.16 ha and the proposed convenience store and gas bar would be located on the southeast portion. There is an existing two -story residential building located near the middle of the property.
The daily design flow for the proposed building has been calculated to be 6,940 litres per day (lpd).
The Applicant has requested the system be installed in two phases with the only the first phase to be currently constructed, for a flow of 3,500 lpd. The Applicant has offered to install a water meter to measure flows and provide some type of deposit to the Township of South Glengarry for construction of the second phase of the sewage system, in the event that flows exceed 3,500 lpd. The system would, therefore, be designed for a reduction in the design flow from 6,940 lpd to 3,500 lpd.
The dispute centres on whether or not, the proposal to use a reduced daily design sewage flow for the design of a new on-site sewage system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Section 8.2.1.3. of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Article 8.2.1.3. Sewage System Design Flow states:
(1) For residential 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.A. (See Appendix A.)
(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
Service Stations (no vehicle washing)(3)
(a) Per water closet, and
950
(i) per fuel outlet(4), or
560
(ii) per vehicle served
20
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.
The Appendix note referred in Article 8.2.1.3. is as follows:
Appendix A-8.2.1.3.(1) and (2) Balancing Tanks.
Where variable daily flows or peak flows occur, the flows to the sewage system may be balanced. The sewage system and any pump(s) that are installed to move the sanitary sewage, should be sized to accommodate a daily design sanitary sewage flow at least equal to the average daily sanitary sewage flow for the week. Balancing tanks should be sized in accordance with good engineering practice to ensure that peak flows can be accommodated.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant and his Agent stated that they had calculated the flows in accordance with the Building Code but that the design flows are not considered to be realistic given the size of the store and the number of washrooms (fixture units) proposed.
The design flows were calculated to be 6,940 lpd in accordance with Table 8.2.1.3.B of the Building Code and a design flow of 7,000 lpd was used to evaluate the size the proposed sewage system and leaching bed. This would require a septic tank having a minimum volume of 21,000 litres, a raised leaching bed with 278 m of distribution pipe and a bed area of 1,735 m2.
This design flow and the associated size of the sewage system is considered by the Applicant to be excessive and not reasonable given the size of the store and its available facilities. The associated costs of building the septic system poses a significant monetary constraint to the developer and in the opinion of the applicant reflects an overdesign of the system.
It was recommended that the sewage system be designed and installed in two phases, each servicing a design flow of 3,500 lpd. The first phase would include a proposed septic tank of 12,000 L, a raised leaching bed with 10 runs of 14 m (140m) of distribution pipe and a total bed area of 876 m2. A water meter would be installed and monitored monthly to determine if flows exceeded 3,500 lpd. The second phase would only be installed if flows exceeded 3,500 lpd. The Applicant recommended that a condition be added to the Site Plan Agreement or that security deposits be obtained by the Township of South Glengarry, to ensure construction of the second phase if necessary.
A review of flows from similar establishments was presented including water bills from two facilities located in urban settings with metered flow. The water bills provided were for time periods ranging from three to twelve months. The two gas stations had average day flows 2,500 lpd and 5,081lpd, but had additional facilities (carwash, additional washrooms etc.) that are not proposed at this site. Maximum day or peak flow projections were not evaluated for these sites.
The Applicant and his Agents expressed concern about the operation of the sewage system if it were oversized, including that it could take a couple of months to fill an oversized tank and that it may impact the pump used to dose the leaching bed.
It is the Applicant’s position that the design flows calculated in accordance with the Building Code will result in significant over-design of the septic system for this project, which will add unnecessary and significant cost to the project.
In response to questions the applicant stated that the existing house on the site does not likely have a flow exceeding 2,000, and that total flows for the site would not exceed 10,000 lpd.
The Applicant’s Agent also indicated that balancing tanks were not considered.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent and Designate indicated that they were in agreement with the flows calculated in accordance with the Building Code. However, they are concerned that the proposal would reduce the design daily flow (Q) by approximately half to 3500 L/day. The implications of this would be:
a reduction of septic tank size to 12000 litre (proposed), from 20820 litre (required)
an overall contact area reduction to 876.3m2 (25.4m x 34.5m) proposed, from 1735 m2 (required), and,
a reduction of distribution pipe to 140 m total (proposed) from 277.6m (required).
The Respondent indicated that there is no mechanism within Part 8 of the Building Code to allow for the reduced daily design flow. They also noted that the calculated daily design flow from Table 8.2.1.3.B used to design a sewage system is not the same as an average day flow. It is generally considered to be a maximum day flow.
In response to questions the Respondent agreed that the existing house on the site does not likely have a flow exceeding 2,000 lpd, and that total flows for the site would not likely exceed 10,000 lpd.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to use a reduced daily design sewage flow for the design of a new on-site sewage system, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code, for the proposed building at 6100 County Road 23, Bainsville, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) Both parties agree that the property in question had a total design flow of less than 10,000 lpd day and therefore, is within the jurisdiction of the Building Code Commission.
ii) The Commission heard that both parties agree that the minimum design flow was 6940 lpd as per the requirements of the Building Code.
iii) There was insufficient information provided to justify a lower design flow than that calculated by Sentence 8.2.1.3.(2) and Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B of the Building Code.
iv) The flows listed in Table 8.2.1.3.B of Division B, are considered to be maximum day flows and average day flows are not suitable for the design of a sewage system, without the use of appropriate peaking factors.
v) The proposed design flow was not supported by adequate data in accordance with Division B, Sentence 8.2.1.3.(4), which states:
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.
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.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 2nd day in the month of February in the year 2021 for application number S-2020-25.
Katherine Rentsch, Chair Designate
Judy Beauchamp
Michael Gooch