Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office
Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara
ISSUE DATE: April 12, 2016
CASE NO.: 16-001
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellants: See Appendix 1 – Appellant List
Applicant: Westcan Income Limited Partnership III (Great Blue Resorts)
Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to upgrade and re-design an existing serviced campground resort
Reference No.: N/L/2015-2016/014
Property Address/Description: Part Lots 6 and 7
Municipality: Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake
Upper Tier: Region of Niagara
NEHO Case No.: 16-001
NEHO Case Name: Wisch v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: March 29, 2016 via telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Westcan Income Limited Partnership III (Great Blue Resorts) | Jorge Oliveira |
| Niagara Escarpment Commission | Martin Kilian |
| Uwe Wisch | Self-represented |
| Thea Wisch | Self-represented |
| Angela Vogt | Self-represented |
| Andrea Kaiser | Self-represented |
| Patrick Prime | Self-represented |
| Brenda Prime | Patrick Prime |
| Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake | Aaron Butler |
| Participant | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Niagara Parks Commission | Ellen Savoia and Donna Gibbs |
ORDER DELIVERED BY HEATHER I. GIBBS AND KAREN KRAFT SLOAN
REASONS
Background
1Jorge Oliveira, on behalf of Westcan Income Limited Partnership III (Great Blue Resorts), submitted development permit application N/L/2015-2016/014 to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) on April 20, 2015, with a revised proposal on November 22, 2015. The revised proposal is to undertake upgrades and a re-design of an existing serviced campground resort, including the following: conversion of 259 approved campsites to 144 park model trailer sites in addition to 95 existing park model trailer sites; the addition of a new heated saltwater pool and adjacent sports court; new structures including a main office, pool house, café with patio, kids club house, and maintenance building, with a total ground floor area for all new buildings of +- 675 square metres (“sq m”) (+- 7,266 square feet (“sq. ft.”)), replacing several original buildings supporting similar functions with a total floor area of +- 725 sq m (+- 7,800 sq ft); re-alignments/locations of driveways/parking areas; and two storm water management ponds (the “Proposed Development”). The Proposed Development is located on a portion of a 9.55 hectare (“ha”) (23.6 acre (“ac”)) lot located within the Niagara Escarpment Development Control Area, designated as Escarpment Rural Area. 101 of the proposed total of 239 park model trailer sites are situated outside the NEC’s Development Control Area.
2On December 30, 2015, the Development Permit application was conditionally approved by the NEC Director.
3The following appeals were then filed with the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”): Uwe and Thea Wisch on January 11, 2016; and Angela Vogt, Andrea Kaiser, Drew Bates, Joy Allinson, Patrick Prime and Brenda Prime on January 13, 2016. Drew Bates and Joy Allinson subsequently withdrew their appeals on March 23, 2016. All of the appeals were brought under s. 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
4A Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) regarding the appeals was held by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on March 29, 2016. At the PHC, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (“Town”) requested party status, and the Niagara Parks Commission (“Parks Commission”) requested participant status. The NEHO granted the requests orally. These are the reasons for the grants of status.
5Also during the PHC, the parties stated that they are in settlement discussions and would like to defer scheduling the hearing. For this reason, the NEHO adjourned the preliminary hearing to a further TCC on April 22, 2016.
Relevant Rules
6The relevant rules of the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Rules”) that apply to the NEHO are:
- In deciding whether to name a person as a Party to the proceeding, the Tribunal may consider relevant matters including whether:
(a) a person's interests may be directly and substantially affected by the Hearing or its result;
(b) a person has a genuine interest, whether public or private, in the subject matter of the proceeding; and
(c) a person is likely to make a relevant contribution to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues in the proceeding.
- The Tribunal may name persons to be Participants in all or part of a proceeding on such conditions as the Tribunal considers appropriate. A Participant to a proceeding is not a Party to the proceeding. In deciding whether to name a person as a Participant, the Tribunal may consider whether the person’s connection to the subject matter of the proceeding or issues in dispute is more remote than a Party’s would be. A person who may otherwise qualify as a Party may request Participant status.
Issue
7The issue is whether party status should be granted to the Town, and participant status should be granted to the Parks Commission.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
8The Town requested party status in order to provide assistance to the NEHO relating to planning advice. The Town has been involved in this development proposal as a consulted agency, and supports the NEC’s decision. The NEC supported the Town’s request, and clarified that there is split jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of this appeal, such that part of the property is governed by the Town’s municipal planning jurisdiction. There were no objections to the granting of party status to the Town.
9The Hearing Officers find that the Town has a genuine public interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and is likely to make a relevant contribution to the NEHO’s understanding of the issues involved in the appeal. As a result, the Hearing Officers granted party status to the Town under Rule 63.
10The Parks Commission requested participant status in the proceeding to provide information germane to the matters on appeal, and to ensure that its interests are represented in the event that the Development Proposal requires an easement over Parks Commission property. The Parks Commission is also an agency that was consulted by the NEC in its consideration of the application. There were no objections to the request for participant status.
11The Hearing Officers find that the Parks Commission has a genuine public interest in the outcome of the proceeding. On consent of all parties, the Hearing Officers granted participant status to the Parks Commission under Rule 66.
12The parties are engaged in discussions to resolve the issues in this appeal prior to hearing. The NEHO, therefore, agreed to adjourn the PHC in this matter, to provide additional time for discussions.
ORDER
13Party status is granted to the Town. Participant Status is granted to the Parks Commission.
14The PHC will reconvene by teleconference call on April 22, 2016, at 10 a.m. The NEHO Case Coordinator will forward details for the resumption of the pre-hearing conference to the parties and participant.
Requests for Party and Participant Status Granted
Pre-hearing Conference Adjourned
“Heather Gibbs”
HEATHER I. GIBBS
HEARING OFFICER
“Karen Kraft Sloan”
KAREN KRAFT SLOAN
HEARING OFFICER
Appendix 1 – Appellant 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
Appendix 1
Appellant List
| Appellant Name | File No. |
|---|---|
| Uwe Wisch | 16-001 |
| Thea Wisch | 16-002 |
| Angela Vogt | 16-003 |
| Andrea Kaiser | 16-004 |
| Patrick Prime | 16-007 |
| Brenda Prime | 16-008 |