Proposed administrative changes to Ontario’s Building Code related to the transfer of enforcement authority of on-site sewage systems, and a proposed technical clarification.

Your feedback is sought on the following three proposals: 

• The transfer of enforcement authority of sewage systems regulated under Part 8 of the Building Code from Board of Heath of the Sudbury and District Health Unit to:
  • Municipality of St.-Charles
  • Municipality of French River
  • Municipality of Markstay-Warren, and
  • Municipality of Killarney
• The Building Code Act provides that the council of each municipality is responsible for the enforcement of this Act in the municipality, except where otherwise provided.
• In the case of St.-Charles, French River, Markstay-Warren, and Killarney, the Building Code Act makes an exception and instead provides the Sudbury and District Health Unit with the responsibility for the enforcement related to Part 8 “Sewage Systems”.
• Presently, the Sudbury and District Health Unit is responsible for issuing permits, and enforcement of septic system provisions, including conducting inspections and issuing orders for remedial actions.
• The proposed administrative Building Code amendment would result in a revision to row 4 of Table 1.7.1.1. “Enforcement of provisions of the Act and Code Related to Sewage Systems”, which forms part of Sentence 1.7.1.1.(1) of Division C of the Building Code.
• The result would be that St.-Charles, French River, Markstay-Warren, and Killarney would assume responsibility to enforce the septic system provisions in the Building Code and Building Code Act.
• The proponents (i.e., four municipalities) requesting changes to the Building Code indicate they have signed an agreement to share building and by-law services, streamlining sewage system permitting for better service, while providing revenue stability by reducing duplication of administrative responsibilities.
• The transfer of the enforcement authority of sewage systems regulated under Part 8 of the Building Code from North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority to:
  • Township of Perry
  • Township of Seguin
  • Township of McMurrich-Monteith
  • Township of and Armour, and
  • Municipality of McDougall.
• The Building Code Act provides that the council of each municipality is responsible for the enforcement of this Act in the municipality, except where otherwise provided.
• In the case of Townships of Perry, Seguin, McMurrich-Monteith, and Armour and the Municipality of McDougall the Building Code Act makes an exception and instead provides the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority with the responsibility for the enforcement related to Part 8 “Sewage systems.
• Presently, North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority (NBMCA) is responsible for issuing permits, and enforcement of septic system provisions, including conducting inspections, and issuing orders for remedial actions where necessary.
• The proposed administrative Building Code amendment would result in revisions to row 7 of Table 1.7.1.1. “Enforcement of provisions of the Act and Code Related to Sewage Systems”, which forms part of Sentence 1.7.1.1.(1) of Division C of the Building Code.
• The result would be the Townships of Perry, Seguin, McMurrich-Monteith, and Township of Armour and the Municipality of McDougall having the authority to enforce the septic system provisions in the Building Code and Building Code Act.
• The proponents (i.e., four townships and one municipality) of these requests state that that the transfer of services from NBMCA would:
• Streamline and expedite the housing development processes by having all building permits for a proposed development in the municipalities processed through a "one-stop-shop". Applicants would no longer need to apply to the municipality for a building permit for construction of the building and to the NBMCA for a building permit for the on-site sewage system that serves the building.
• Benefit property owners, developers, and contractors by providing a cost-effective service, including permit review, approval, and inspections, and
  • Have a positive impact on the residents/ratepayers with reduced permit fees and increased service delivery times on permits and inspections.
• The proponents state that there would be no enforcement implications and would have sufficient staff to deliver the anticipated demand in service.
• Clarifying the size of distribution pipes used in leaching chambers in the design and construction of shallow buried trenches.
• Distribution pipes used in chambers and leaching chambers for shallow buried trenches require smaller diameter pipe and openings, while other types of sewage systems using leaching chambers and distribution pipe require larger diameter pipes and openings.
• The way the Building Code is currently written results in conflicts in that if a leaching chamber is used for a shallow buried trench, then the distribution pipe must be the larger size with bigger openings, and this is not correct.
• A minor amendment to make clear that the larger pipe and orifice sizes do not apply to the distribution pipe when a leaching chamber is used in a shallow buried trench.
• The proposed Building Code change to Division B, Sentence 8.7.3.5.(3) “Except for shallow buried trench, every pressurized distribution pipe within a leaching chamber shall...”