Seth Logan

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

The appellants appealed the Quinte Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a permanent pile-supported deck and cantilevered dock on their property located on the Bay of Quinte.

The appellants relied on an engineering opinion that the structure would not negatively affect flooding, erosion, or conservation of land.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no effect on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, and the conservation of land.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposed development did not comply with Ontario Regulation 319/09 and was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.