Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office
Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara
ISSUE DATE:
June 20, 2018
CASE NO.:
18-006
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellant:
Sherazade Khursigara
Applicant:
Ron Reiserer
Respondent:
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal:
Approval of a Development Permit Application to demolish a single dwelling and wood frame shed and to construct a 2 storey dwelling with an attached garage, deck, covered porch, balcony and install a sewage treatment system
Reference No.:
H/R/2016-2017/332
Property Address/Description:
Part Lot 4, Concession 2, NS
Municipality:
City of Burlington
Upper Tier:
Regional Municipality of Halton
NEHO Case No.:
18-006
NEHO Case Name:
Khursigara v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard:
May 24, 2018 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative+
Sherazade Khursigara
Self-represented and Zahan Khursigara+
Ron Reiserer
Jennifer Meader
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Michael Baran+
ORDER DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN AND GRAHAM REMPE
REASONS
Background
1On January 26, 2018, the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) conditionally approved a development permit application, number H/R/2016-2017/332 submitted by Ron Reiserer (“Applicant”) to demolish an existing two-storey, 178 square metre (“sq m”) single dwelling to its foundation and demolish a wood frame shed, and to construct a new two-storey, ± 295.6 sq m single dwelling (including attached garage), and to install a new sewage treatment system, with minor grading related to the construction of a drainage swale, on a 21.2 hectare lot (“Conditional Approval”). The proposed development is to take place on a property identified as Part Lot 4, Concession 2, NS, located in the City of Burlington, Region of Halton, Ontario (“Subject Property”).
2On February 8, 2018, Sherazade Khursigara (“Appellant”), owner of an adjacent property, appealed the NEC’s decision to grant the Conditional Approval.
3On May 24, 2018, a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) took place by telephone conference call (“TCC”). Attending the call were the Appellant, her son Zahan Khursigara, Michael Baran, planner for the NEC, Jennifer Meader, counsel for the Applicant, and the Applicant and his wife Angela Reiserer.
4At the outset of the PHC, Mr. Baran explained the history of the application and provided an overview of the terms of the Conditional Approval.
5In a discussion of the issues raised in the appeal, the Appellant explained that she is concerned that the water source for the proposed development is insufficient and inappropriate, because currently the Subject Property uses as its water source, a stream on Ms. Khursigara’s property with an aboveground pipe, which is connected to the mouth of an open stream. She says that a safe water source, such as a well or a cistern on the Subject Property, would be more appropriate. The Appellant explained that several nearby properties all use the same artesian well, and she is concerned that if a larger house is built on the Subject Property, there may be a change in the water pressure and the quantity of water available to reach her property. She also suggested that a permanent fence at the rear of the subject property lot line would add to the safety of both properties.
6Counsel for the Applicant explained that the Applicant’s position is that there are only three houses using the artesian well, and that easements have been in place for many years allowing for the sharing of water from the spring. She said as well, that there would not be any change in the amount of water consumed by the old house to that which will be used by the new house.
7The Hearing Panel determined that the issue of a permanent fence at the back of the subject property is not a part of the Conditional Approval and is not an appropriate issue in the hearing of the appeal.
8Pursuant to Rule 141 of the Rules of Practice of the Environmental Review Tribunal, applicable to the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”), the Hearing Panel directed that the parties exchange all documents relevant to the proceeding by June 8, 2018. In consultation with the Parties, the Hearing Panel also scheduled the remaining dates for the appeal, including filing and hearing dates as set out in the Order below.
ORDER
9The exchange of documents between the parties shall occur on or before June 8, 2018.
10The Appellant must serve her Witness Statements on each of the other Parties, and file them with the NEHO, on or before June 22, 2018.
11The Applicant and the NEC must serve their Witness Statements on each of the other Parties and file them with the NEHO, on or before July 4, 2018.
12Reply Witness Statements and or submissions, should there be any, must be served on the other Parties and filed with the NEHO by July 9, 2018.
13Service and filing of Witness Statements and other documents to be relied upon by the Parties, may take place electronically, on or before the dates set out above, with three (3) hard copies to be provided for the Hearing Panel at the outset of the Hearing.
14The Hearing shall take place on July 12 to 13, 2018 commencing at 10 a.m. at
Burlington City Hall
426 Brant Street
Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6
Procedural Directions Ordered
Hearing Scheduled
“Marlene Cashin”
MARLENE CASHIN
HEARING OFFICER
“Graham Rempe”
GRAHAM REMPE
HEARING OFFICER
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