Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office
Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara
ISSUE DATE:
July 19, 2018
CASE NO.:
17-075
(Revisions of July 26, 2018 have been incorporated herein)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellant:
See Appendix 1 – Appellant List
Applicant:
Darlene Williamson
Respondent:
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal:
Approval of a Development Permit Application to construct a single dwelling, a driveway, septic system, a connection to an existing well and to recognize an existing structure
Reference No.:
P/R/2016-2017/203
Property Address/Description:
Part Lot 33, Concession 6, WHS
Municipality:
Town of Caledon
Upper Tier:
Regional Municipality of Peel
NEHO Case No.:
17-075
NEHO Case Name:
Rigby v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard:
June 28, 2018 by telephone conference call and in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Darlene Williamson
Doug Cunningham
Terry Rigby and Valerie Rigby
Self-represented
Joan Duncan-McLeish and Campbell McLeish
Self-represented
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Lisa Grbinicek
REPORT DELIVERED BY KAREN KRAFT SLOAN AND MARCIA VALIANTE
REASONS
Background
1Darlene Williamson (“Applicant”) applied to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) for a Development Permit under s. 25 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”) to construct a 1.5-storey single dwelling with attached porch and garage, a driveway, septic system and connection to an existing well on a 4.45 hectare existing lot located at Part Lot 33, Concession 6, WHS, with the municipal address of 138 Ballinafad Sideroad, in the Town of Caledon (“Site”). The Development Permit would also recognize an existing structure to be used for storage. On December 12, 2017, the NEC by way of Director’s Approval conditionally approved the application. It is a condition of the approval that the Applicant must submit a final site plan and a final landscape restoration and enhancement plan to the NEC for approval before the Development Permit can be issued.
2On December 18, 2017, the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) received appeals of the NEC’s decision from Terry and Valerie Rigby and, on December 19, 2017, the NEHO received appeals from Joan Duncan-McLeish and Campbell McLeish (collectively, “Appellants”).
3On April 13, 2018, the Hearing Officers held a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) in Caledon. The Applicant and her representative, Doug Cunningham, the Appellants, and Lisa Grbinicek, Senior Strategic Advisor with the NEC, attended. No other persons requested status in the proceeding. During the PHC, the Appellants identified a number of issues they had with the application. The parties then discussed options for resolving these issues. Ms. Grbinicek offered to meet with the Appellants and a representative of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority to discuss the landscape restoration and enhancement plan and Mr. Cunningham offered to meet with the Appellants on the Site to assist them in gaining a better understanding of the application and to attempt to resolve issues. The Hearing Officers adjourned the PHC to May 4, 2018 to allow time for these meetings and discussions.
4On May 4, 2018, the Hearing Officers continued the PHC by telephone conference call (“TCC”). Mr. Cunningham reported that Ms. Williamson had agreed to adopt a different septic system with a smaller footprint and to relocate the transformer to alleviate the need for trenching and disruption of vegetation for a hydro line. Ms. Grbinicek reported on the meeting held to discuss the landscape plan and noted that as a result of the changes, a new site plan is required, which will then become the basis for an updated landscape plan that will include measures for invasive species management and tree restoration.
5The Hearing Officers continued the PHC by TCC on May 23, 2018. The Appellants advised that, while some of their issues had been resolved, they remained concerned about the potential impact of the location of the existing well on water quality and the potential impact of the work necessary to connect the well to the new house on Site vegetation. After some discussion, the parties advised that they were unable to resolve the issue of the well and requested that the hearing be scheduled. The Hearing Officers issued an Order on June 25, 2018 scheduling the hearing and setting out directions for the filing of materials in advance of the hearing.
6The Hearing Officers held a further TCC on June 28, 2018. At that time, Mr. Cunningham informed the Hearing Officers that the Applicant was now willing to drill a new well and decommission the existing well. The Appellants stated that this would resolve their one remaining issue with the application and they would therefore withdraw their appeals. The Appellants were asked if they were seeking to add conditions to the Development Permit, and they responded that they were not. They undertook to withdraw their appeals by letter to the NEHO by the next day.
7The Appellants wrote to the NEHO on June 29, 2018 stating that, based on their agreement with the Applicant as to the location of a new well to be drilled, the location of the source of hydro service to the new dwelling, and that the existing well will be decommissioned, and based on their understanding that the location of the new well and the hydro service will be incorporated in the final site plan to be approved by the NEC, they withdraw their appeals.
8On July 10, 2018, Ms. Grbinicek advised the NEHO that the final site plan and landscape plan were submitted by the Applicant the previous day. Ms. Grbinicek confirmed that the final site plan reflects the agreement among the parties. In particular, it identifies the location of the new well within the building envelope and has a notation that the existing well is to be decommissioned. It also identifies the location of the hydro service from a pole located to the east of the driveway. The hydro hookup will be trenched. All disturbed areas will be restored with topsoil and seeded/naturalized. She also noted that the landscape plan is consistent with the discussions among the parties.
9The parties have resolved the issues in this appeal and the Appellants have notified the NEHO that they are withdrawing their appeals. Rule 205 of the Rules of Practice of the Environmental Review Tribunal, which applies to the termination of development permit proceedings before the NEHO, provides that, if an appellant withdraws his or her appeal of a development permit, the decision of the NEC is automatically confirmed pursuant to s. 25(10.2) of the NEPDA.
10The Hearing Officers order:
a. That the appeals are dismissed; and
b. That the decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, dated December 12, 2017, to approve the Applicant`s Development Permit Application is confirmed.
Appeals Withdrawn
Appeals Dismissed
NEC Decision Confirmed
“Karen Kraft Sloan”
KAREN KRAFT SLOAN
HEARING OFFICER
“Marcia Valiante”
MARCIA VALIANTE
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.
Charles T.W. Rigby
17-075
Valerie Rigby
17-076
Joan Duncan-McLeish
17-077
Campbell McLeish
17-078