Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office

Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara

ISSUE DATE: August 3, 2016

CASE NO.: 15-133

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended

Appellant: Emile Saine

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal: Refusal of a Development Permit Application to construct a single dwelling (including attached garage) with an on-site sewage system and accessway

Reference No.: N/R/2008-2009/281

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 2, Concession 2

Municipality: Town of Grimsby

Upper Tier: Region of Niagara

NEHO Case No.: 15-133

NEHO Case Name: Saine v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard: May 24, 2016 in Grimsby, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Emile Saine Counsel/Representative Gordon E. Petch and Zaid Sayeed

Parties Niagara Escarpment Commission Counsel/Representative Martin Kilian

Participant David Manuel Counsel/Representative Self-represented

Presenter Phil Thompson Counsel/Representative Self-represented

REPORT DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN

REASONS

Background

1John Ariens, on behalf of Emile Saine (“Appellant”), submitted development permit application N/R/2008-2009/281 (“Development Permit Application”) to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) on February 5, 2009, seeking permission to construct a single family dwelling and a driveway on a property consisting of approximately 20 acres, containing a ravine and a plateau. The property is located at Part Lot 2, Concession 2, Town of Grimsby, in the Region of Niagara. The Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) land use designations applicable to the property are Escarpment Natural Area (“ENA”), and Escarpment Protection Area (“EPA”).

2During the period from the submission of the Development Permit Application in February 2009to the fall of 2015, at least one revision was made to the application and several deferrals of the NEC’s decision were requested by the Appellant and granted by the NEC in order for further discussions, comments from other agencies, and study to occur. This included the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) in October 2014. Four NEC staff reports were prepared at various points during this time period, with the first three reports recommending refusal of a development permit, and the final one in September 2015 recommending the issuance of a development permit subject to conditions (“Staff Report”). The conditions included in the Staff Report may be found in Appendix 3 to this Report.

3On September 21, 2015, the NEC refused the Development Permit Application.

4On October 5, 2015, the Appellant appealed the decision of the NEC to refuse the Development Permit Application under s. 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”).

5At a pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) held on January 19, 2016, David Manuel was granted participant status, and Phil Thompson was granted presenter status in this proceeding. Further information on procedural matters in this appeal can be found in the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) order of February 25, 2016.

6The hearing of the appeal took place in Grimsby, Ontario on May 24, 2016. The Hearing Officer has concluded that the decision of the NEC dated September 21, 2015, to refuse to issue a development permit for Application N/R/2008-2009/281, is not correct and should be changed.

Relevant Legislation and Niagara Escarpment Plan Provisions

7The relevant legislation together with sections of the NEP and the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”), including those referenced in the NEC’s Notice of Decision, are cited in full, in Appendix 1 to this Report.

Issue

8The issue in this appeal is whether the NEC’s decision to refuse to issue a development permit should be confirmed. This issue involves analysis of the following sub-issues:

1. Whether the proposal meets the Objectives of the ENA of the NEP.
2. Whether the proposed development is a Permitted Use under the NEP.
3. Whether the proposed development is in accordance with the applicable Development Criteria of the NEP.
4. Whether the proposed development conforms to the Natural Heritage policies outlined in s. 2.1.1 and s. 2.1.2 of the PPS.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

Introduction

9The property that is the subject of the Development Permit Application (the “Property”) is located directly south of the terminus of Golf Woods Drive in the Town of Grimsby. To its north is a low-density residential development known as Golf Woods Subdivision. The Property is currently vacant and landlocked, and the Development Permit Application proposes an access to the Property from Golf Woods Drive.

10Before moving to a consideration of the relevant issues in the appeal, several preliminary issues should be addressed.

Stormwater Runoff

11Mr. Manuel stated at the PHC, that he resides on land adjacent to the Property, and his wife owns land adjacent to his property. He said that they are particularly concerned with the resulting impact of stormwater drainage and runoff onto their properties in relation to the proposed development permit. Mr. Manuel attended the hearing but did not provide evidence, except to say that he remains interested in the appeal of the NEC’s decision, as it might affect their properties. He further indicated that he has been having ongoing discussions with the Appellant’s engineer and planner who told him that he will be consulted on conditions related to stormwater drainage, should a development permit be issued.

12Mr. Thompson was not able to appear at the hearing. However, at the PHC he stated that he is a homeowner who lives in the subdivision adjacent to the loop at the top of Golf Woods Drive, and that drainage from the escarpment area near the Property has been an ongoing issue over the last 10 to 12 years. Like Mr. Manuel, his primary concern is with stormwater management related to the proposed property development. In email correspondence to Mr. Ariens, the Appellant’s planner, Mr. Thompson stated that he would not be presenting any evidence at the hearing but that he remains interested in the proceedings. He said, “until such time as I can see the Storm Water Runoff Report and the detail drawings of the driveway, I have no evidence to present”.

13Condition 17 of the conditions recommended in the Staff Report requires that:

the applicant is to complete and submit for the approval of the Town of Grimsby, the Region of Niagara, the Conservation Authority and the NEC, a Stormwater Management Report and Plan prepared by a qualified professional which demonstrates no adverse downstream impacts on the receiving storm sewer system and minimal individual and cumulative effects on water quality and quantity. Once this report has been approved, both the Report and Plan shall form part of the Development Permit and will be implemented.

14The engineers and planners for the NEC, the Appellant, and the relevant agencies agree that this condition, together with other conditions dealing with grading, detailed driveway design, erosion control and silt fencing, will ensure that the stormwater runoff from the proposed driveway will not have a negative impact on any of the downstream properties and that stormwater flows from the Property can be appropriately controlled and regulated so as to not cause an adverse impact.

15Brian Enter, an engineer with IBI Group Inc. who was called by the Appellant, testified that “any impacts from the existing runoff from the development site will not be impacted by the proposed driveway with a proper…engineering design”. Regarding Mr. Thompson’s complaint that he is currently affected by runoff from the Property during larger storm events due to a deficient berm at the top of Golf Woods Drive, Mr. Enter stated that the proposed development provides an opportunity to correct this situation.

16Although Mr. Manuel and Mr. Thompson have expressed concerns about the effects of stormwater runoff should a development permit be issued for the Property, they have not provided any evidence to show that harmful effects from runoff could not be properly mitigated.

Precedent for Future Development

17As a second preliminary matter, the Hearing Officer finds that the Development Permit Application should be considered in light of the impacts of the house and driveway themselves, not their potential contribution to setting a precedent for future development in the area. Mr. Manuel stated at the PHC that he and his wife are concerned with the implications of the development on the future of the remainder of the “bench” area (which he described as “approximately bounded by the ravine east of Park Road and just west of Peninsula Ridge”) in its entirety.

18In response to this concern, Mr. Ariens testified that any future development in the area must be considered separately from the current Development Permit Application. Martin Kilian, planner for the NEC, also testified that each development application submitted to the NEC is considered on its own merits and is not affected by consideration of other past or future development permit applications.

19Regarding this concern, the Hearing Officer is mindful of the often cited caution of Joint Board Panel Chair Len Gertler, in Patterson & Goodfellow Ltd., Office of Consolidated Hearings Case No. 00- 030, November 22, 2000:

The Niagara Escarpment Plan is designed to preserve a very special environment, a World biosphere, over a very long time - in perpetuity, in fact. From this perspective, one cannot overlook the reverberations of a precedent: sanctioning a non-conforming residential use in a Protection Area, on the other parts of the Escarpment Protection Area along the entire length of the Niagara Escarpment. This could open a wedge which would allow the fragmentation of the Escarpment environment for superficially similar, but less meritorious, applications.

20In that decision, Mr. Gertler was speaking of precedents related to sanctioning a non-conforming use, which is not the case here. In other situations, however, a cumulative effects analysis, allowed for by certain provisions in the NEP, can provide the opportunity for an examination of other nearby present or future developments. In this case, Mr. Manuel has expressed a concern regarding future development on the “bench” area, but has not provided evidence regarding any specific potential development that might be subject to a cumulative effects analysis.

21The planning regime for the NEP area requires that development may only take place with a development permit issued by the NEC “in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan” (NEPDA s. 25.(4)). On appeal, in assessing the correctness of the NEC’s decision, the NEHO is to consider whether the proposed development is in accordance with the NEP.

Insufficient Reasons

22A third preliminary matter to be addressed is the Appellant’s submission that the reasons provided by the NEC for its decision are insufficient. The Appellant submits as well, that “the NEC, for all practical purposes, has decided not to participate in this appeal in any way nor to present evidence of any kind to support the Decision and the Decision must therefore be overturned”.

23The NEC, in its decision of September 21, 2015, provided the following reasons for refusing the application:

1. The proposal does not meet the Objectives of the Escarpment Natural Areas under Part 2.3.¹
2. The proposed use does not meet the General Development Criteria under Part 2.2.1(a) of the Niagara Escarpment Plan with respect to avoiding substantial negative impact on the Escarpment environment.
3. The proposed use does not meet the General Development Criteria under Part 2.2.1(b) of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and will have serious cumulative impacts.
4. The proposed use does not meet the General Development Criteria under Part 2.2.4 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and does not preserve the natural characteristics of the area.
5. The proposed use does not meet the Development Criteria under Parts 2.7.1 and 2.7.3 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan for new development in wooded areas.
6. The proposed use does not conform to the Natural Heritage policies outlined in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement.

24These reasons do not provide a great deal of insight into the the NEC’s specific reasons for its decision. Mr. Kilian confirmed that the reasons in this case are representative of the type of reasons typically provided by the NEC. Counsel for the Appellant submits that while these limited reasons may be the norm for the NEC, such reasons are insufficient to enable the Appellant to know the case it must meet.

25The Hearing Officer notes that this is a new hearing. The test to be applied is whether the Appellant’s development permit application satisfies the requirements of the NEP, not whether the NEC’s reasons for its decision are sufficient. The sufficiency of the NEC’s reasons need not be addressed. The Hearing Officer is to focus on the merits of the proposed development in light of the wording of the NEP.

26As to the Appellant’s submission that the NEC “has decided not to participate in this appeal in any way nor to present evidence of any kind to support the Decision and the Decision must therefore be overturned”, the Hearing Officer notes that Mr. Kilian testified at the hearing of the appeal and provided a written witness statement, referred to as Exhibit 11 on the case Exhibit List attached as Appendix 4 to this Report. In addition to his witness statement and oral testimony, Mr. Kilian, with Mr. Ariens for the Appellant, submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts, which is attached as Appendix 2 to this Report. Mr. Kilian also acted as the NEC’s representative in this proceeding. Therefore it cannot be said that the NEC has not participated in the hearing of the appeal.

Witness Evidence Summaries

Mr. Kilian

27Mr. Kilian testified on behalf of the NEC. He has 31 years of experience as a planner with the NEC, and he wrote each of the NEC Staff Reports for this application, dated November 13, 2013, February 11, 2014, March 12, 2014, and September 9, 2015. The last report (Staff Report) recommended the issuance of a development permit subject to conditions. Mr. Kilian was qualified to give opinion evidence as a land use planner.

28Mr. Kilian’s testimony included a history of previous permit applications involving the Property, in particular, a conditional approval for a golf course, clubhouse, and winery. That development did not take place, however, and the conditional approval expired over 10 years ago. Mr. Kilian testified that a common element between the previous development proposal and the current development proposal is the access road. The access road to the proposed golf course was approved essentially in the same location as the private driveway access that is being proposed in the current Development Permit Application, with the main difference being that the road previously approved was to be six meters wide, and the current driveway access is proposed to be three meters wide. In Mr. Kilian’s opinion, given the NEC’s reasons for refusal, it appears that the issue of the driveway and its location in the ENA of the Property, is the most contentious issue in the appeal, although a dwelling and private sewage disposal system are also included in the Development Permit Application.

29Mr. Kilian testified that despite the NEC’s decision not to issue a development permit, it remains his opinion, that subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the proposed development is a permitted use in the ENA and EPA designated portions of the subject lands. As well, he believes that the proposed development addresses the applicable Development Criteria and policies of the NEP, and is consistent with the PPS. In his opinion, the Development Permit Application is supported by all relevant land use authorities and agencies, and the proposed development, subject to the conditions proposed in the Staff Report, is in conformity with the NEP.

Ian Barrett

30Mr. Barrett, who testified on behalf of the Appellant, is a biologist with experience in environmental biology, ecology and natural heritage planning, currently employed by Colville Consulting Inc. He was qualified to give expert opinion evidence as a biologist.

31Mr. Barrett testified that his opinions are based upon primary observations of the Property, one in 2009, and four between May 2013 and October 2014 in preparation for the EIS for the proposed development, and upon a review of available background information for the area. Mr. Barrett’s testimony regarding the EIS included information on botanical inventories, breeding bird surveys and a species at risk screening of habitats on the Property.

Brian Enter

32Mr. Enter, who testified on behalf of the Appellant, is the Urban Land Engineering Lead for the Hamilton IBI Group Inc. office. He testified that he is a Professional Engineer licenced to practice in Ontario, and that he has over 15 years of engineering experience in the development industry. He was qualified to provide expert evidence as an engineer.

33Mr. Enter testified that a preliminary engineering review of the proposed development has been completed, and that a detailed design will be completed, submitted and reviewed through each of the applicable permit processes of the Town of Grimsby, Niagara Region, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and NEC, to meet all applicable design standards and best engineering practices.

34The focus of Mr. Enter’s evidence was in response to the concerns regarding stormwater runoff, as set out in a preceding section of this Report.

John Ariens

35Mr. Ariens, who testified on behalf of the Appellant, is an Associate Director with IBI Group Inc. and the Planning Lead for its Hamilton office. He testified that he is a Registered Professional Planner who has been involved in the Ontario planning profession since 1974. He was qualified to give evidence as an expert land planner.

36Mr. Ariens testified that he has been involved with the proposed development of the Appellant’s property for many years, including the previous golf course proposal.

37In Mr. Ariens’ opinion, the proposed single detached house and driveway are permitted uses under the NEP, and the conditions set out in the Staff Report, if implemented, would ensure full compliance with all of the NEP Development Criteria.

Issue No. 1: Whether the proposed development meets the Objectives of the Escarpment Natural Areas of the NEP

38In its notice of decision dated September 21, 2015, the NEC listed as its first reason for refusal of the Development Permit Application, that the proposed development does not meet the Objectives of the ENA of the NEP. The Objectives of the ENA are set out in Part 1.3 of the NEP as follows:

1. To maintain the most natural Escarpment features, stream valleys, wetlands and related significant natural areas and associated cultural heritage features.
2. To encourage compatible recreation, conservation and educational activities.
3. To maintain and enhance the landscape quality of Escarpment features.

39Mr. Ariens and Mr. Kilian state in the Agreed Statement of Facts, that the placement of the driveway as proposed through the natural area of the Property will stabilize the existing stream valley and thereby maintain escarpment natural features. They believe that the additional tree planting will maintain and enhance the landscape quality. They both believe that the Development Permit Application together with the Staff Report conditions, meet the objectives of the ENA designation within Part 1.3.

40In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Hearing Officer accepts the evidence of Mr. Ariens and Mr. Kilian that additional tree planting will maintain and enhance the landscape quality and that ENA features will be stabilized with the placement of the driveway in the ENA as proposed.

Findings on Issue 1

41For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Officer finds that the proposed use meets the Objectives of the Escarpment Natural Area, as set out in Part 1.3 of the NEP.

Issue No. 2: Whether the Proposed Development is a Permitted Use under the NEP

42As noted above, the Property is designated as both ENA and EPA under the NEP. Part 1.3 of the NEP sets out the Objectives, Criteria for Designation and Permitted Uses for ENAs, and Part 1.4 sets out the Objectives, Criteria for Designation, and Permitted Uses for EPAs.

43In this case, the driveway is proposed to be located in the ENA portion of the Property, and the house is proposed to be located within the EPA. There is no dispute that the proposed development constitutes a Permitted Use under the NEP, as single dwellings are permitted uses under either Part 1.3 or Part 1.4 as long as the Development Criteria in Part 2 of the NEP are met.

Findings on Issue 2

44The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed development constitutes a Permitted Use under the NEP, subject to the Development Criteria in Part 2 of the NEP.

Issue No. 3: Whether the Development Proposal is in accordance with the Development Criteria of the NEP

45Part 2 of the NEP provides that Permitted Uses may be allowed, subject to Development Criteria. The following Development Criteria are relevant to this application: General Criteria 2.2.1 (a) and (b); 2.2.4; 2.7.1 and 2.7.3.

General Development Criteria 2.2.1

46General Development Criteria 2.2.1 provides:

1. Permitted uses may be allowed provided that:

a) The long term capacity of the site can support the use without a substantial negative impact on Escarpment environmental features such as contours, water quality, water quantity, natural vegetation, soil, wildlife, population, visual attractiveness and cultural heritage features.

b) The cumulative impact of development will not have serious detrimental effects on the Escarpment environment (e.g. water quality, vegetation, soil, wildlife, and landscape).

47Mr. Barrett’s testimony included details of the EIS conducted by Colville Consulting in October 2014. Regarding wildlife, bird species and vegetation on the Property, he testified that no bird species at risk or species considered locally rare were documented on the Property, and none of the plant species documented on the Property is listed as federally, provincially or locally rare. Seven wildlife species were observed in the woodland portion of the Property. In Mr. Barret’s opinion, “the construction of a driveway on this property will not pose an impact to wildlife movement or habitat use in the area”, and in order to minimize impacts on smaller bodied wildlife species, the EIS recommended provisions that would help maintain wildlife movement across that portion of the Property.

48Mr. Ariens and Mr. Kilian agree that based on the EIS “the long-term capacity of the site can support the proposed use without substantial negative impact on Escarpment Environmental Features”.

49Based on the above undisputed evidence, the Hearing Officer finds that the Appellant’s proposed development satisfies the requirements of Parts 2.2.1 (a) and (b) of the NEP.

Development Criteria 2.2.4

50Development Criteria 2.2.4 provides:

Any development permitted should be designed and located in such a manner as to preserve the natural, visual and cultural characteristics of the area.

51The evidence before the Hearing Officer does not indicate that there will be any interruption to the natural, visual or cultural characteristics of the area. To the contrary, the evidence adduced indicates otherwise. The Agreed Statement of Facts states in this regard:

The Planners agree that the proposed driveway and residence will be designed and located in such a manner as to preserve the natural, visual and cultural characteristics of the area. The driveway follows a natural valley and aligns with the historic tractor path accessing the upper plateau lands. The proposed dwelling and septic system are located within the Escarpment Protection Area and do not result in any visual or environmental adverse impact.

Development Criteria 2.7.1 and 2.7.3

52Development Criteria 2.7.1 and 2.7.3 relate to new development within wooded areas as follows:

2.7 New Development Within Wooded Areas

The objective is to ensure that new development should preserve as much as possible of wooded areas.

1. Disturbance of treed areas should be minimized, and proposed developments in heavily treed areas shall have site plan agreements containing specific management details regarding the protection of existing trees.

2. Existing tree cover or other stabilizing vegetation will be maintained on slopes in excess of 25 per cent (1 in 4 slope).

53The objective of Part 2.7 of the NEP is to ensure that new development affecting wooded areas does not result in environmental damage. The parties believe that this reason, cited by the NEC in its Notice of Decision, relates primarily to the proposed driveway, as the proposed house is not located in a wooded area.

54The NEP does not prohibit tree removal in the NEP area, and Part 2.7.1 states that development can take place in “heavily treed areas” provided “site plan agreements containing specific management details regarding the protection of existing trees” are in place.

55On this issue, the Agreed Statement of Facts states:

The laneway follows and existing stream valley and tractor path and the Conditions of Approval will ensure that only the trees necessary to be removed for grading or construction purposes will be removed. A detailed Tree Replacement Plan will be required, and as indicated in the Permit Approval received from the Conservation Authority the replacement ratio will be 2 new trees for every tree to be removed. Existing trees will be protected and stabilizing vegetation will be maintained on the valley slopes.

56There is no evidence to suggest that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the Staff Report, will result in environmental damage to the wooded area of the Property that cannot be mitigated. While several of the conditions refer to the mitigation of damage to trees and vegetation, Condition 13 sets out the specific steps that must be taken in this regard as follows:

Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Town of Grimsby, and prior to the issuance of a Permit by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority to allow work in the area subject to Ontario Regulation 155/06, the applicant shall submit for the approval of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Niagara Escarpment Commission a Tree Protection/Vegetation Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified professional which shall identify trees to be removed to accommodate the proposed driveway construction, recommended protection/mitigation measures to ensure trees to be retained are not impacted by the proposed works, proposed tree planting to replace trees being removed with native species at a ratio of 2:1 in accordance with Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Conditional Permit No. 3365, and proposed re-vegetation of disturbed areas to re-establish a natural habitat that is of at least equal quality to that which currently exists. Once approved, this Plan shall form part of the Development Permit.

57As both the NEC and the Appellant agree that mitigation measures can be provided through appropriate Conditions of Approval, including the Tree Replacement Plan referenced in Condition 13, the Hearing Officer accepts that the objective of Part 2.7 will be met.

Findings on Issue 3

58For all of the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Officer finds that the proposed development satisfies the relevant Development Criteria set out in 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.7.1 and 2.7.3 of the NEP, provided that the conditions attached to the NEC Staff Report dated September 9, 2015 are made conditions of the development permit.

Issue No. 4: Whether the Proposed Development Conforms to the Natural Heritage Policies Outlined in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the PPS

59The NEC has also refused the Development Permit Application for the reason that the proposed use does not conform to Natural Heritage policies outlined in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the PPS, which state:

2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

60In the Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Ariens and Mr. Kilian have set out their joint position on the applicability of the above noted PPS sections to the Development Permit Application, as follows:

The Planners agree that the establishment of a dwelling and a driveway in the manner as is proposed by this Development Permit complies with the Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. The Natural Features will be protected over the long-term and the diversity and connectivity of the Natural Features, including their ecological function and biodiversity, will be maintained with additional plantings. A driveway for a single family dwelling does not obstruct any linkage function along this valley slope and the conditions recommended by NEC Staff adequately ensure that the Natural Features and Areas will be maintained.

61In the absence of any contrary evidence on this issue, the Hearing Officer accepts the above evidence of Mr. Ariens and Mr. Kilian, as confirmed in their oral testimony, that the use proposed in the Development Permit Application, when applied in conjunction with the relevant conditions recommended in the Staff Report, conforms to the Natural Heritage policies set out in the PPS.

Findings on Issue 4

62For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Officer finds that the proposed use conforms to the Natural Heritage policies outlined in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the 2014 PPS.

RECOMMENDATION

63In light of the findings that the proposed development is a Permitted Use and is consistent with the relevant Development Criteria and Provincial policies, the Hearing Officer concludes that the decision of the NEC dated September 21, 2015, to refuse to issue a development permit for Application N/R/2008-2009/281, is not correct and should be changed. The NEC’s decision is, therefore, not confirmed pursuant to s. 25(12) of the NEPDA. The Hearing Officer recommends the issuance of a development permit to construct a dwelling and an access driveway at Part Lot 2, Concession 2, Town of Grimsby, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 3 of this Report.

NEC Decision Not Confirmed

“Marlene Cashin”

MARLENE CASHIN HEARING OFFICER

Appendix 1 – Relevant Legislation and Niagara Escarpment Plan Provisions Appendix 2 – Agreed Statement of Facts Appendix 3 – Conditions of Approval Appendix 4 – Exhibit List

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

Footnotes

1. 1The Hearing Officer accepts the submissions of the parties that “Part 2.3” represents a typographical error on the NEC’s part, and should read “Part 1.3”. The section will be referred to as “Part 1.3” elsewhere in the report.