Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office

Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara

ISSUE DATE: November 13, 2020

CASE NO(S).: 20-022

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Appellant: Elaine Courtis

Applicant: Robert Canham

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to construct a 1-2 storey dwelling, install a private sewage disposal system and a driveway on an existing vacant lot

Reference No.: G/R/2018-2019/9032

Property Address/Description: Part Lots 27 & 28, Town Plot of Brooke

Municipality: Township of Georgian Bluffs (Sarawak)

Upper Tier: County of Grey

NEHO Case No.: 20-022

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Elaine Courtis

Self-represented

Robert Canham

Self-represented

Niagara Escarpment Commission

Brandon Henderson

HEARD: October 7, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Helen Jackson, Hearing Officer

REPORT

REASONS

Background

1Robert Canham (“Applicant”) submitted a development permit application to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) on May 4, 2018. The Applicant is seeking permission to construct a one to two storey, +/- 232.5 square metres (“sq m”) (2,500 square feet (“sq ft.”) dwelling, having a maximum height to peak of +/- 8.5 metres (“m”) (28 ft (“feet”)), with a private sewage disposal system and a driveway on a 5.5 hectare (“ha”) (13.6 acres (“ac”)) existing vacant lot. The subject property is located at Part Lots 27 and 28, Town Plot of Brooke, in the Township of Georgian Bluffs. The Niagara Escarpment Plan land use designations applicable to the property are Escarpment Protection Area and Escarpment Natural Area.

2On June 5, 2020, the NEC approved the Applicant’s development permit application No. G/R/2018-2019/9032, subject to conditions (“Conditional Approval”). The conditions are attached in Appendix A to this decision.

3On June 15, 2020, Elaine Courtis (“Appellant”) appealed the decision of the NEC to conditionally approve the application for a development permit under s. 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”). Ms. Courtis stated that she was concerned with water supply in the area.

4The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office held a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on October 7, 2020. No additional persons sought status during the PHC.

5At the PHC, the NEC planner responsible for this file, Brandon Henderson, provided background to this matter. The Appellant, Ms. Courtis, outlined her concerns regarding poor well water supply in the area. She was of the view that any additional draw on the water resources in the area would exacerbate the low water supply to her home and her neighbours, all who live on the other side of the road from the subject property. She also expressed concern that the proposed development was for more than one home.

6The Applicant, Robert Canham, clarified the proposed development. He indicated that in his view, and based on his own experience, the ground conditions are favourable for ground water supply at his property. He confirmed the proposal is for one home, within a footprint area identified on the NEC mapping.

7Through the discussions that ensued, the parties agreed in principle to an additional condition related to site servicing for the domestic water supply for the proposed new home. The Appellant, Ms. Courtis, indicated that if such a condition were to be included in a revised development permit, that would satisfy her concerns regarding impacts to water supply.

8Mr. Henderson confirmed that the NEC could assist in providing proposed wording for an additional condition for the parties to review to meet that objective.

9By email to the Tribunal on October 30, 2020, Mr. Henderson confirmed that the NEC had prepared an additional condition and that the parties agreed to this condition.

Issue

10The issue is whether the NEC’s decision to conditionally approve the application for a development permit, with a revised condition as agreed upon by the parties, would be correct and should not be changed.

Relevant Legislation

11When there is agreement on revised conditions to a development permit that was approved by the NEC, as is the case in this appeal, s. 25(12.1) and s. 25(12.2) of the NEPDA apply, as noted below:

Agreement on terms and conditions

25(12.1) The decision of the delegate shall be deemed to be confirmed if,

(a) the decision of the delegate was a decision to issue a development permit;

(b) the parties who appeared at the hearing have agreed on all the terms and conditions that should be included in the development permit and all of these terms and conditions are set out in the report of the officer under subsection (11); and

(c) the opinion of the officer expressed in his or her report under subsection (11) is that, if the decision of the delegate included the terms and conditions referred to in clause (b), the decision would be correct and should not be changed.

Same

(12.2) If subsection (12.1) applies, the decision of the delegate shall be deemed to be a decision to issue the development permit with the terms and conditions referred to in clause (12.1) (b).

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

12By letter to the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) dated October 29, 2020, Mr. Henderson confirmed that the NEC staff have contacted both the Applicant and the Appellant with the proposed new condition, as noted below:

Additional Condition:

Prior to the issuance of a Development Permit by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, a letter shall be submitted to the Niagara Escarpment Commission for approval by a qualified professional demonstrating that the proposed well shall adequately service the proposed single dwelling and that the well meets the applicable Ontario Build Code requirements.

13Mr. Henderson confirmed that NEC staff discussed the condition over a phone call with Mr. Canham on October 23, 2020 and through an e-mail and phone call with Ms. Courtis on October 26, 2020. Mr. Henderson confirmed that both the Applicant and the Appellant were satisfied with the above condition.

14Mr. Henderson confirmed that the NEC has no concerns with including the additional condition in the NEC Development Permit.

15The Hearing Officer notes that the proposed additional condition to the Conditional Approval will address the concern raised by the Appellant in regards to well water supply in the vicinity. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed revision, as set out above, is in accordance with the NEPDA, as the modification will result in stronger assurance in relation to the sustainability of water supply for the subject property and in the vicinity. Therefore, the Hearing Officer accepts that, if the Conditional Approval is amended to include the additional condition as proposed by the parties, the decision would be correct and should not be changed.

16Consequently, pursuant to s. 25(12.2) of the NEPDA, the NEC’s decision shall be deemed to be a decision to issue the Conditional Approval with the addition of the new condition as noted in paragraph [12] above.

DECISION

17The Hearing Officer finds that the NEC's decision to conditionally approve the Applicant’s development permit application No. G/R/2018-2019/9032, with the addition of a new condition as set out in paragraph [12] above to those already set out in Appendix A, is correct and should not be changed. The decision of the NEC is deemed to be confirmed with the addition of the new condition.

NEC Decision Confirmed with Revisions

“Helen Jackson”

HELEN JACKSON

HEARING OFFICER

Appendix A – Conditions of Approval

If there is an attachment referred to in this document,

please visit www.olt.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office

Environmental Review Tribunal

A constituent tribunal of Ontario Land Tribunals

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248