Ruling No.: 24-09-1643
Application No.: S-2024-07
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. and Table 8.2.1.6.A of Division B of the Building Code.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Rodney Taylor for the resolution of a dispute with Micheal Hodge, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the clearance distance from the as-constructed deck to the existing Class 4 Sewage System provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.A of Division B of the Building Code, at 18734 County Road 2, Cornwall, Ontario.
APPLICANT Rodney Taylor
South Glengarry, ON
RESPONDENT Micheal Hodge
Chief Building Official
Township of South Glengarry
Lancaster, Ontario
PANEL Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING June 20, 2024
DATE OF RULING June 20, 2024
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit, under the Building Code Act, 1992, to upgrade an existing deck serving an existing residential dwelling at 18734 County Road 2, Cornwall, Ontario.
During the inspection it was noted that the existing septic tank is located partially beneath the existing deck that the Applicant wished to upgrade. The septic tank and is accessible via a side hatch in the skirting of the deck. The tank is also located near two doors, which are used to access the rear yard of the property.
The property in question is adjacent the St Lawrence River. The dwelling was constructed in 2003, and both parties agree that building permits were issued for the house and the onsite sewage system. However, no building permit was located for the existing deck, although it was reported to be built at the same time as the house.
Both parties agreed that the dispute is regarding the clearance distance of the structures (door and existing deck) to the existing septic tank.
More specifically the dispute for the Commission to determine is whether the clearance distance from the as-constructed deck to the existing Class 4 Sewage System provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.A of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. Defined Terms partially states:
Septic tank means a watertight vault in which sanitary sewage is collected for the purpose of
removing scum, grease and solids from the liquid without the addition of air and in which solids settling and anaerobic digestion of the sanitary sewage takes place.
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.
Division B, 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 set out in Table 8.2.1.6.A.
Table 8.2.1.6.A. Minimum Clearances for Treatment Units Forming Part of Sentence 8.2.1.6.(1)
Object
Minimum Clearance, m
Structure
1.5
Well
15
Lake
15
Pond
15
Reservoir
15
River
15
Spring
15
Stream
15
Property Line
3
Column 1
2
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant applied for a building permit for the existing deck at the rear of the property. He initially inquired of the municipality if there was a permit for the existing deck but found out a permit had not been issued. During the investigation of the site, it was determined that the existing deck had been built over the septic tank. The Township refused the permit as the tank did not meet the clearance distance required in Table 8.2.1.6.A. of Division B of the Building Code.
The Applicant indicated that the deck was built at the time of the house construction and that the septic tank had been located below the deck since that time. The Applicant advised that there is access to the tank from the side of the deck and that the tank had been pumped several times. He indicated that the local sewage hauler has not expressed any concerns with the access provided to the septic tank. The Applicant further indicated that he had not had any issues with the tank.
The Applicant had considered the possibility of reconfiguring the deck but is unable to do this as there are two doors that access the deck, and one is located very close to the septic tank. He indicated that as the doors are quite high, 2 to 3 ft above the existing ground, and that it would be unreasonable to put stairs in that would also impact the septic tank. The Applicant also indicated that the tank was 29 inches from the closest door, however this did not correspond to the drawings provided.
In response to questions, the Applicant explained that the tank lid under the deck is also under soil, and that he was considering putting a riser on the tank. The Applicant indicated that he had not had any issues with the tank.
Given that the septic tank is accessible and has been maintained, the Applicant is requesting relief from the clearance distance so that he may obtain a building permit for the deck.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent’s position is that the deck does not meet the required setbacks to the septic tank in accordance with Table 8.2.1.6.A. of Division B of the Building Code. He indicated that the municipality could not locate a permit for the deck but had the permits for the house and the sewage system. When it was determined that the Applicant was upgrading/repairing his deck, he was required to obtain a building permit for the deck. Through this process it was noted that the septic tank was partially located beneath the existing deck. He advised that there were other issues with the deck construction that have been addressed by the parties, but the setback from the tank to the deck does not comply with the clearance distances set out in the Building Code and is still a concern.
The Respondent confirmed that there was an access hatch on the side of the deck that was used to access the septic tank for pumping.
In response to questions, the Respondent indicated that he had no concerns with the setback to the house, as it met the Building Code required 1.5 m, but he was concerned with the setback to the deck. He was asked if he had any concerns with the build up of gases under the deck from the septic tank, and he indicated that he had no concerns as he felt there was sufficient air flow beneath the deck. He further indicated that the deck is about 4.5 ft above the surrounding ground and felt that this elevation would allow for air flow.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the clearance distance from the as-constructed deck to the existing Class 4 Sewage System provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.6. and Table 8.2.1.6.A of Division B of the Building Code, at 18734 County Road 2, Cornwall, Ontario on conditions that:
a) sufficient access is provided to the septic tank from the top of the deck through an access hatch for the purpose of cleanouts, baffle repairs, and maintenance,
b) airflow is maintained over the septic tank to prevent the build up of gases, and
c) a minimum of 6 inches of soil is maintained over the tank to restrict the release of gases from the tank.
Reasons
i. The Commission heard the parties agree that only a portion of the septic tank is located beneath the existing deck.
ii. The Commission heard testimony that the Respondent had no concerns regarding the clearance distance from the septic tank to the foundation wall.
iii. The Commission also heard that the Respondent did not have concerns about the build up of gases beneath the deck. Given the conditions above, the Commission is of the opinion sufficiency of compliance is achieved.
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 20th day in the month of June in the year 2024 for application number S-2024-07.
Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate