OERT 2021

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The applicant sought a development permit to construct a garage on a property within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

Several neighbours appealed the conditional approval, raising concerns about visual impact, potential use as a second dwelling, and septic capacity.

Following pre-hearing conferences, the parties agreed to modified conditions requiring a landscape plan for vegetative screening and a restriction registered on title prohibiting use as a dwelling.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the modified decision pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a waste disposal site and a financial assurance estimate.

After the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the ECA requirement in a first phase hearing, the appellants withdrew the remainder of their appeal.

The Tribunal lifted the stay on the remaining items, set compliance dates, and dismissed the proceeding pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to the instrument holder for washing aggregates.

The granting of leave to appeal triggered an automatic stay of the permit under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The instrument holder brought a motion to remove the automatic stay and requested an interim lifting of the stay pending the motion's disposition.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the interim lifting of the automatic stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond management and well water sampling.

The Applicants sought costs after the Director revoked an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage site, which led to the dismissal of their applications for leave to appeal.

The Applicants argued the Director acted unreasonably by issuing the Approval and failing to revoke it before the applications were filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs request, finding it lacked authority to award costs for conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the proceeding, and that the Director acted reasonably in revoking the Approval after receiving new expert evidence.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to CRH Canada Group Inc. for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The Tribunal found that both applicants had standing.

Applying the leave test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, given the failure to adequately apply the precautionary principle, preventive strategies, and sustainable development principles in light of scientific uncertainty regarding groundwater impacts.

The Tribunal also found the decision could result in significant environmental harm due to the potential for well contamination and flooding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit issued to the applicant for the construction of a one and a half storey accessory building.

During pre-hearing conferences, the applicant re-designed the proposed garage to include recreation facilities requiring water and sewage servicing.

The Hearing Officer issued a procedural order directing the applicant to provide information on sewage management and a drawing depicting the visual relationship between the residence and the garage.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission was also directed to provide draft wording for conditions regarding a landscape plan and restricting the use of the garage as a second dwelling.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to address contamination from a former manufactured gas plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the revocation of the original order, the issuance of a new order specifying risk management measures for the affected properties, and the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the issuance of the new order.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to implement an inspection and maintenance program for soil berms and to retain a Qualified Person to assess potential off-site impacts.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a nearby resident who raised concerns about environmental conditions.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for documentary disclosure and scheduled a further pre-hearing conference to scope issues and consider mediation.

The appellant appealed specific conditions imposed under an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval relating to an animal by-product processing plant.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted Presenter status to three entities, approved a partial settlement resulting in the withdrawal of part of the appeal, and directed the Director to amend the ECA accordingly.

A further pre-hearing conference was scheduled to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions on the remaining issues.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a single dwelling.

The original application was for a larger dwelling, but the applicant had revised the proposal to a smaller dwelling.

Due to an administrative error, the Commission approved the larger dwelling.

On appeal, the parties agreed to modify the conditions of approval to reference the revised site plan for the smaller dwelling.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the decision with the revised conditions pursuant to s. 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a two-storey dwelling and sewage system.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with the character of the Minor Urban Centre and that the sewage system was improperly located near a key hydrologic feature.

The Hearing Officers accepted the expert planning evidence that the development maintained the area's character and met growth objectives.

They also found the drainage area was not a key hydrologic feature and the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the sewage system setback.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision confirmed.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage disposal facility.

Before the application was decided, the Director revoked the underlying Environmental Compliance Approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a lot and construct a new dwelling for his extended family.

The subject property is designated Escarpment Protection Area under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance exceeded permitted lot density provisions and did not conform to the lot creation policies of the Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.