Jennifer Meader

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish existing structures and construct a large single dwelling on a property designated as Escarpment Protection Area.

The appellant argued the proposed development's size and visual impact would negatively affect the open landscape character and scenic resources of the area.

The Hearing Officer accepted the expert evidence of the applicant and the Commission that the proposed development is a permitted use and accords with the relevant objectives and development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single dwelling.

The Hearing Officer addressed preliminary issues regarding notice of the application and decision, and established a procedural schedule for a two-day hearing to commence on June 26, 2019.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the applicant to demolish and rebuild a single dwelling.

The appellant's primary concern was the applicant's reliance on an off-site water source located on the appellant's property.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use and met the development criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed, as issues regarding water rights and potential liability were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised concerns regarding the proposed development's water source and its potential impact on a shared artesian well.

The Hearing Panel determined that a requested property boundary fence was not an appropriate issue for the appeal.

The Panel issued procedural directions and scheduled the hearing dates.