Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Office of the Minister Room 6630, Whitney Block 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto ON M7A 1W3 Tel: 416-314-2301

Ministère des Richesses naturelles et des Forêts Bureau du ministre Édifice Whitney, bureau 6630 99, rue Wellesley Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1W3 Tél.: 416-314-2301

SEP 1 1 2020

Mr. Charles MacPhail Principal Charles Linsey & Associates Ltd. charles@charleslinsey.com

NOTICE OF DECISION made under the provisions of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990

Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office Case No. 17-062 NEC File No.: W/D/2015-2016/384 93-2019-91

Re: Danik Daniels, appellant against the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of an application for a development permit made by Charles Linsey & Associates Ltd. (W/D/2015-2016/384) to recognize the demolition of a one-storey, 515 square metre implement storage barn on a 21.2 hectare lot identified as Part Lot 17 FW FLM, Concession 2, located in the (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton.

Pursuant to section 25 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA), R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended, a panel of Hearing Officers has inquired into the merits of the decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) to conditionally approve the development proposal and advised me of their opinion of the decision.

.../2

Mr. MacPhai Page 2

I have reviewed the decision of the NEC and, after reviewing the Hearing Officers' Recommendation (copy attached), I concur with the NEC's decision to issue a development permit subject to the attached conditions and find that the decision is correct and should not be changed. According to section 25 (12) of the NEPDA, the decision of the NEC is, therefore, confirmed.

Attachment

c: Debbie Ramsay, A/Director, Niagara Escarpment Commission Jim Avram, Senior Planner, Niagara Escarpment Commission Andrew Dyment Danik Daniels

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPENDIX Charles Linsey & Associates LTD W/D/2016-2017/384

1. Development shall occur in accordance with the Site Plan, Development Permit Application and Conditions as approved.

2. The Development Permit shall expire three years from its date of issuance unless the development has been completed in accordance with the Development Permit.

3. No site alteration of the existing contours of the property including the placement or stockpiling of fill on the property is permitted with the exception of that identified within the development envelope in accordance with the approved Site Plan.

4. No vegetation shall be cut or removed from the development envelope except for that identified within the development envelope in accordance with the approved Site Plan.

5. All disturbed areas shall be re-vegetated and stabilized, in accordance with the approved Site Plan, by the end of the first growing season following the completion of site grading and building construction. All trees, shrubs and nursery stock shall be native to Ontario. Only in extenuating circumstances will non-native species be considered. Native plant material should be sourced from local plant nurseries when available; bush dug plant material is not acceptable.

Advisory Notes:

a) This Conditional Approval does not limit the need for or the requirements of any other approval, licence or certificate under any statute (e.g., Ontario Building Code, Conservation Authorities Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.). The Niagara Escarpment Commission Development Permit is required prior to the issuance of any other applicable approval, licence or certificate.

1 of 1

ISSUE DATE: May 30, 2018

CASE NO.: 17-062

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

Appellant: Danik Daniels

Applicant: Charles Linsey & Associates Limited

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to recognize the demolition of a one-storey storage barn

Reference No.: W/D/2015-2016/384

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 17 FW FLM, Concession 2

Municipality: (Former) Town of Dundas

Upper Tier: City of Hamilton

NEHO Case No.: 17-062

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

Heard: April 25, 2018 in Hamilton, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Danik Daniels	Self-represented
Charles Linsey & Associates Limited	Charles MacPhail
Niagara Escarpment Commission	Jim Avram
Andrew Dyment	Self-represented

REPORT DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN AND JUSTIN DUNCAN

REASONS

Background

1This is a report relating to an appeal from the June 22, 2017 decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) to conditionally approve development permit application number W/D/2015-2016/384, submitted by Charles Linsey & Associates Ltd. (“Applicant”), to recognize the demolition of a one-storey, 515 square metre (“m2”) implement storage barn on a 21.2 hectare lot identified as Part Lot 17 FW FLM, Concession 2, located in the (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is owned by Andrew Dyment.

2On July 5, 2017, Danik Daniels, owner of an adjacent property, appealed the NEC’s decision to grant the conditional approval.

3On December 12, 2017, a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) took place by telephone conference call (“TCC”). During the PHC, the Hearing Officers ordered that disclosure of documents between the parties occur by January 31, 2018 and scheduled a subsequent TCC for February 16, 2018 to allow the parties time to consider the contents of disclosure. Reasons for the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office’s (“NEHO”) oral dispositions were set out in an order issued on December 27, 2017.

4During the TCC on February 16, 2018, the Hearing Officers requested that Mr. Dyment confirm whether he intended to have status separate from the Applicant on the appeal. Mr. Dyment requested and was granted status as a party. During the TCC, Mr. Daniels also confirmed the issues he intended to raise at the hearing. Finally, the Hearing Officers set a detailed schedule for the appeal, including hearing dates.

5A hearing of the appeal took place on April 25, 2018. During the Hearing, the Hearing Officers heard evidence from Jim Avram, Senior Planner with the NEC. Mr. Avram was qualified by the Hearing Officers to provide opinion evidence on land use planning. Although Mr. Avram appeared for the NEC, he indicated to the Hearing Officers that he would not engage in any advocacy, including making submissions or engaging in cross-examinations in order to preserve his ability to provide expert evidence. The Hearing Officers also heard evidence from Mr. Daniels. Neither the Applicant nor Mr. Dyment testified or called any witnesses to provide evidence.

Issue

6The main issue is whether the conditional development permit is correct in light of the provisions of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”) and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) and if not, whether a conditional development permit with revised or additional conditions of approval would be correct.

Evidence

7Mr. Avram explained that the application for the development permit was sought to recognize the demolition of a one-storey, 515 m2 implement storage barn on the Subject Property. He also explained that the Subject Property is designated Escarpment Protection Area in the NEP.

8Mr. Avram testified that there are two residences located at the northeast corner of the Subject Property amongst a cluster of buildings where the implement storage barn had been located.

9Mr. Avram explained that, after the application for the development permit was submitted, he conducted a site visit on July 12, 2016 and discovered that the barn had already been demolished. He testified that he observed that the site was level and had been cleared of debris.

10Mr. Avram stated that although various agencies had been consulted on the application, the Hamilton Conservation Authority had not been, as Sydenham Creek is located over 150 metres (“m”) from the site of the demolition. He explained that Part 2.6 of the NEP requires a hydrologic evaluation if development is within 120 m of a “key hydrologic feature” and has the potential to result in negative impacts on the feature or its functions.

11Mr. Avram testified that the application was reviewed against the relevant policies of the 2017 version of the NEP contained in Parts 1.4 (Escarpment Protection Area), 2.2 (General Development Criteria), 2.7 (Development Affecting Natural Heritage) and 2.13 (Scenic Resources and Landform Conservation). He explained that through a review of these policies, it was determined that approval would not be in conflict with the NEP.

12Mr. Avram clarified that Part 2.10 (Cultural Heritage) of the NEP was not considered in depth by NEC staff given that the barn that was demolished was constructed after May 10, 1979.

13Mr. Avram explained that he had confirmed with City of Hamilton staff prior to the commencement of the Hearing that the barn itself had no cultural heritage value.

14In Mr. Avram’s opinion, the conditional development permit is not in conflict with the NEP and the conditions are appropriate in the circumstances.

15In response to the matters raised by Mr. Daniels, Mr. Avram opined that the site plan supplied with the application was sufficient to inform NEC staff, given the location of the barn to be demolished in relation to the size of the property as a whole. Mr. Avram had no opinion on whether contaminant sampling should be required. Concerning archaeology, it was Mr. Avram’s opinion that no assessment of the demolished barn was necessary, and further, that no other archaeological assessment was necessary, as such a condition had not been requested by the City of Hamilton and the land had already been disturbed by previous development.

16In cross-examination, Mr. Avram clarified that no change is being proposed to any other part of the Subject Property as part of the application.

17Mr. Avram explained in cross-examination that the NEC may review previous site conditions if there is knowledge that an historical site exists on a property. He explained that although Part 2.10 of the NEP applies to all properties, the NEC does not mandate a condition requiring archaeological assessment for every application for a development permit. He explained that from a cultural heritage perspective, if a proposed development site has been previously built upon, it is typically not subject to an archaeological assessment. He explained however, that such a condition may be required where any excavation is proposed. Mr. Avram explained that NEC staff typically rely on City of Hamilton cultural heritage planners to recommend when a condition should be imposed requiring an archaeological assessment.

18Regarding contamination, Mr. Avram opined that it was unlikely that the demolition would lead to contamination. He explained that the Hamilton Conservation Authority does not typically object to any demolitions located farther than 30 m from a watercourse.

19Next, the Hearing Officers heard from Mr. Daniels. Although he sought to provide opinion evidence on the subject of heritage, the Hearing Officers found, on the basis that he was a party and could not meet the duties of an expert witness to be objective and non-partisan, that his evidence would be confined to factual matters.

20Mr. Daniels testified that he owns the property adjacent to the Subject Property. He explained that he is in the process of developing an organic farming operation on his land and has recently obtained a development permit to construct agricultural buildings to support his operation. He stated that he has been required to conduct an archaeological assessment as a condition of his development permit. He explained that one of the reasons for his appeal in this matter relates to what he considers to be inconsistencies in the application filed by the Applicant with the NEC and in the review process applied by the NEC in considering that application.

21Regarding heritage and archaeology, Mr. Daniels acknowledged that the demolished barn did not in itself appear to have any heritage value. However, he explained that the tight cluster of buildings within which the now demolished storage barn was located, range in age from 100-200 years. Additionally, he provided evidence of the existence of buildings on the site of the barn that pre-dated the most recent barn. Based on this evidence, Mr. Daniels said there would likely be some archaeological items in the ground below the demolished barn.

22Mr. Daniels also expressed the view that in demolishing the barn, soil must have been moved to remove support structures, and grading must have been performed to clean up the site after demolition.

23Based on the proximity of the barn to older buildings and the expected disturbance of the soil, Mr. Daniels stated that he believes Phase 1 and 2 archaeological assessments should be performed as a condition of the development permit.

24Regarding his position that a site plan and survey should be provided for the entire Subject Property, not just the portion of it where the demolition was proposed to take place, Mr. Daniels expressed the view that the development permit would have the effect of ‘normalizing’ or ‘recognizing’ all pre-existing uses on the Subject Property. He was concerned, for example, that two residences exist on the Subject Property where only one is permitted. In his view, a development permit that brings all uses on the property into good standing under the NEP should require a survey and site plan for the entire property before the NEC considers an application for such permit. In response to questions of the Hearing Officers, Mr. Daniels estimated that the residences located on the Subject Property were constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s respectively.

25Finally, Mr. Daniels testified that he observed a reduction in yield in the field of organic crops located on his property following the demolition of the barn on the Subject Property. It was his view that a condition should be imposed to require an assessment for any environmental contaminants arising from the demolition of the barn, as he is required to meet rigorous standards for organic certification and any contaminants moving from the Subject Property to his property could detrimentally impact his operation.

26In cross-examination, Mr. Daniels explained that the NEC development permit he has received for the proposed development on his land is to add a greenhouse and two other new buildings. He acknowledged that building these structures will involve excavation and grading. However, he explained that these structures are located significantly farther away from any known heritage buildings than the demolished barn on the Subject Property is from known heritage buildings and, therefore, the probability of finding artifacts in the soil at the barn site would be much greater, in his view. He explained that in his experience, the NEC requires a heritage assessment if a proposed development is within 500 m of a heritage building.

27Mr. Daniels explained that he observed the demolition from afar and saw heavy equipment on the Subject Property removing the barn. However, he could not recall if he saw any earth being moved.

28In cross-examination, Mr. Daniels acknowledged that he had not had any testing performed to determine why he had experienced a reduction in crop yield following the demolition.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

29Mr. Daniels submitted that additional conditions ought to be included in the development permit: requiring Phase 1 and 2 archaeological assessments of the site of the demolition; requiring the preparation of a site plan and survey for the entirety of the Subject Property; and requiring an assessment for environmental contaminants arising from the demolition through a condition for soil and water sampling.

30Mr. Dyment submitted that the application is simply to recognize the demolition of an implement storage barn. He submitted that the evidence of Mr. Avram was strong, and supports the conditional development permit approved by the NEC. On behalf of the Applicant, Charles MacPhail concurred with Mr. Dyment’s submissions.

31Based on the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Hearing Officers find that applications for the development permits must be considered on a case-by-case basis. To take two examples, an application for a new aggregate quarry and an application to add a deck to an existing home cannot be treated in the same way, as they will have differing potential for impact. Similarly, the Hearing Officers find minimal value in comparing Mr. Daniels’ development permit conditions to the conditions imposed in the development permit approved by the NEC that is currently before the NEHO for consideration.

32The appropriate lens through which to examine the current application is set out above, and that is whether the conditional development permit is correct in light of the provisions of the NEPDA and the NEP.

33Before engaging in this inquiry, the Hearing Officers note that the application process here straddled the policy divide between the old version of the NEP and the new version of the NEP, which became effective on June 1, 2017. Not only did the NEC’s approval have to accord with the newer policies contained in the NEP, the Hearing Officers are required by s. 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act to assess the application against the new version of the NEP since it is the operative version of the plan in force at the time that the Hearing Officers are making this decision.

34There is no issue between the parties as to the appropriateness of the conditions imposed by the NEC in approving the conditional development permit. The disagreement between the parties is whether additional conditions are necessary.

35Regarding the need for a complete site plan and survey for the Subject Property, the Hearing Officers agree with the evidence of Mr. Avram that the focused site plan provided with the application was sufficient, in this case, to assess the application. It appears that Mr. Daniels’ position on this point arises from a misunderstanding about the scope of what the conditional development permit is intended to accomplish. The permit does not ‘normalize’ or otherwise permit anything on the Subject Property other than the demolition of the implement storage barn. If there are other structures on the Subject Property that have been constructed or demolished without a permit, that work would have to be assessed separately against the provisions and policies contained in the NEPDA and the NEP.

36With regard to environmental contaminants, the evidence tendered by Mr. Daniels was entirely speculative in nature. Mr. Daniels did provide the Hearing Officers with a list of contaminant standards from Ontario Regulation 154/04, the Records of Site Condition Regulation passed under the Environmental Protection Act, which he explained he must meet to obtain and maintain organic certification, but there was no evidence tendered at the Hearing indicating what contaminants were generated by the demolition or that were likely to have been generated by the demolition. Nor was any evidence called revealing how any contaminants could have traveled across the Subject Property onto Mr. Daniels’ land and impacted his crops. Furthermore, Mr. Avram explained that typically the Hamilton Conservation Authority does not object to any demolitions or require conditions on development permits unless they come within 20- 30 m of a watercourse. The distance between Mr. Daniels’ property and the demolished barn is far greater than 20-30 m.

37The Hearing Officers have considered the provisions of the NEPDA and the policies contained in the NEP in assessing the need for soil and water testing in this context. Policies 2.6.3(a) and 2.6.9 of the NEP provide that:

3. If, in the opinion of the implementing authority, a proposal for development within 120 metres of a key hydrologic feature has the potential to result in a negative impact on the feature and/or its functions, a hydrologic evaluation will be required that:

a) demonstrates that the development, including any alteration of the natural grade or drainage, will protect:

i. the key hydrologic feature or the hydrologic functions of that feature,

ii. the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water

iii. natural streams or drainage patterns; and

iv. the overall water budget for the watershed, including existing and planned municipal drinking water systems.

9. Development shall protect the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water.

38Policy 2.6.3(a) requires the preparation of a hydrologic evaluation to assess surface water quality where a proposal, within 120 m of a key hydrologic feature, has the potential to result in a negative impact. In this situation, the site of the barn demolition was not within 120 metres of the stream located on the Subject Property.

39There are no specific policies in the NEP relating to preservation of soil quality or soil testing. However, the Hearing Officers observe that in some circumstances testing of soil may be necessary to ensure contamination does not reach ground or surface water.

40Based on the limited evidence provided by Mr. Daniels, the Hearing Officers are unable to find that there is the potential for a negative impact arising from the demolition of the implement storage barn on any hydrologic feature, or on Mr. Daniels’ crops. The Hearing Officers therefore find that in this situation, a development permit absent a condition requiring soil and water testing accords with the NEPDA and the NEP.

41Turning to the matter of archaeology, the relevant policies of Part 2.10 of the NEP are as follows:

2.10 Cultural Heritage

The objective is to conserve the Escarpment’s cultural heritage resources, including significant built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological resources.

1. Development shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources are conserved.

2. Where proposed development is likely to impact cultural heritage resources or areas of archaeological potential, the proponent shall undertake a heritage impact assessment and/or archaeological assessment. The proponent must demonstrate that heritage attributes will be conserved through implementation of proposed mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches.

42All but one of the italicized terms in Policy 2.10 contained in the above policies are defined in Appendix 2 of the NEP and are as follows:

Archaeological resource: Includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (Provincial Policy Statement, 2014).

Conserve or conservation:

b) In a cultural heritage context, means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.

Cultural heritage resource: Property that includes built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential.

Significant:

d) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.

Criteria for determining significance for the resources identified in section d) are recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used.

While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation.

43The phrase “areas of archaeological potential” in Part 2.10 is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”) as follows:

Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Methods to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed through archaeological fieldwork.

44Based on the uncontested evidence of Mr. Daniels, that the cluster of buildings in which the demolished barn was situated dates back approximately 100-200 years and that there were buildings pre-dating the 1970-era barn at the location of the barn, the Hearing Officers find that the development is likely to impact an area of archaeological potential, as defined by the PPS, as archaeological resources are potentially located in the soil around and underneath the location of the demolished barn.

45The Hearing Officers also accept as reasonable Mr. Daniels’ assertion that at least some soil would have had to be disturbed or moved in order to remove the foundations supporting the barn and/or, at a minimum, to level the soil after demolition. Further, condition 3 of the conditional development permit approved by the NEC allows for site alteration and alteration of the property contours within the development envelope.

46With these findings made, the question then becomes what, if anything, may be required by the NEP by way of revised or additional conditions. Although the application for the development permit in this context is to recognize a demolition after the fact, the Hearing Officers see no reason to treat this application any differently from one applied for prior to a development having been carried out. An applicant for a development permit should not gain an advantage by proceeding with development before obtaining a permit.

47Included in the evidence filed by the NEC at the Hearing was a January 30, 2017 letter supplied to the NEC by staff at the City of Hamilton. The letter was provided to the NEC prior to the NEC and the City becoming aware that the demolition had already been completed. With regard to archaeology specifically, the City’s letter states that the Subject Property meets four criteria used by the City of Hamilton and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for determining archaeological potential. City staff then assessed the application against the then applicable Policy 2.12(1) from the 2005 version of the NEP, which had provided that “care should be taken to discover unknown and to preserve unknown archaeological sites and areas where such sites might reasonably exist.” On the basis of this policy, the City indicated that it did not require an archaeological assessment but said that “the NEC must advise the proponent in writing” as follows:

The subject property has been determined to be an area of archaeological potential. It is reasonable to expect that archaeological resources may be encountered during any demolition, grading, construction activities, landscaping, staging, stockpiling or other soil disturbance, in addition to any areas impacted by the installation of services, such as water, electricity and ground-source heat pumps, and the proponent is advised to conduct an archaeological assessment prior to such impacts in order to address these concerns and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. Mitigation, by an Ontario-licensed archaeologist, may include the monitoring of any mechanical excavation arising from this project. If archaeological resources are identified on-site, further Stage 3 Testing and Stage 4 Mitigation may be required as determined by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. All archaeological reports shall be submitted to the City of Hamilton concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Should deeply buried archaeological materials be found on the property during any of the above development activities the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) should be notified immediately (416.314.7143). In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact both MTCS and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer Services (416.326.8392).

48The Hearing Officers have compared the 2005 policies of the NEP considered by the City of Hamilton staff to the 2017 policies specifically relating to archaeology and find that certain policies have been significantly altered in the 2017 NEP. In particular, policy 2.10.1 now provides that development shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources are conserved. Policy 2.10.2 provides that where proposed development is likely to impact cultural heritage resources or areas of archaeological potential, the proponent shall undertake a heritage impact assessment and/or archaeological assessment and the proponent must demonstrate that heritage attributes will be conserved through implementation of proposed mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches. The language of the NEP has clearly shifted from simply “taking care” to discover and protect archaeological sites, to ensuring that assessments are undertaken to identify archaeological resources and protect those which are considered significant through mitigation.

49In considering these renewed and strengthened 2017 NEP policies, the Hearing Officers find that an advisory note in this context, as had been requested by the City of Hamilton, is insufficient. The Hearing Officers find that a condition in the development permit is necessary in this context that would require an archaeological assessment to determine if any archaeological resources exist in the areas of land which were subject to demolition activities, grading, landscaping, staging, stockpiling or other soil disturbance, and whether any mitigation measures are necessary to protect such resources, if found. The Hearing Officers find that the following sixth condition should be added to the development permit:

6. The applicant shall undertake a phase 1 and phase 2 archaeological assessment in the development envelope to identify any archaeological resources disturbed by the development and to determine whether phases 3 and 4 assessments are necessary to conserve any such resources.

50In conclusion, in accordance with s. 25(11) of the NEPDA, the Hearing Officers find that the decision of the NEC is not correct and should not be confirmed absent the additional condition set out above.

RECOMMENDATION

51In accordance with s. 25(11) of the NEPDA, the Hearing Officers report to the Minister that it is our opinion that the decision of the NEC should not be confirmed.

52Instead, the Hearing Officers recommend approval of a conditional development permit with the proposed revised Conditions of Approval as set out in Appendix 1 to this Report.

NEC Decision Not Confirmed Revised Conditions of Approval Recommended

“Marlene Cashin”

MARLENE CASHIN HEARING OFFICER

“Justin Duncan”

JUSTIN DUNCAN HEARING OFFICER

Appendix 1 – Proposed Revised Conditions of Approval – Development Permit Application: W/D/2015-2016/384

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 Environmental Review Tribunal

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

New

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Charles Linsey & Associates LTD W/D/2016-2017/384

1. Development shall occur in accordance with the Site Plan, Development Permit Application and Conditions as approved.

2. The Development Permit shall expire three years from its date of issuance unless the development has been completed in accordance with the Development Permit.

3. No site alteration of the existing contours of the property including the placement or stockpiling of fill on the property is permitted with the exception of that identified within the development envelope in accordance with the approved Site Plan.

4. No vegetation shall be cut or removed from the development envelope except for that identified within the development envelope in accordance with the approved Site Plan.

5. All disturbed areas shall be re-vegetated and stabilized, in accordance with the approved Site Plan, by the end of the first growing season following the completion of site grading and building construction. All trees, shrubs and nursery stock shall be native to Ontario. Only in extenuating circumstances will non-native species be considered. Native plant material should be sourced from local plant nurseries when available; bush dug plant material is not acceptable.

6. The applicant shall undertake a phase 1 and phase 2 archaeological assessment in the development envelope to identify any archaeological resources disturbed by the development and to determine whether phases 3 and 4 assessments are necessary to conserve any such resources.

Advisory Notes:

a) This Conditional Approval does not limit the need for or the requirements of any other approval, licence or certificate under any statute (e.g., Ontario Building Code, Conservation Authorities Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.). The Niagara Escarpment Commission Development Permit is required prior to the issuance of any other applicable approval, licence or certificate.

1 of 1