Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003110 (Formerly PL200421)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant: A. & R. De Sousa

Appellant: Shawn Rhodes

Subject: Consent

Description: To sever a property to create two new residential building lots

Reference Number: B3/McConkey/2020

Property Address: Concession 1 Part Lot 32

Municipality/UT: Parry Sound/Parry Sound

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003110

Legacy Case No: PL200421

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003110

Legacy Lead Case No: PL200421

OLT Case Name: Rhodes v. Parry Sound (Twn.)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Consent

Description: To sever a property to create two new residential building lots

Reference Number: B4/McConkey/2020

Property Address: Concession 1 Part Lot 32

Municipality/UT: Parry Sound/Parry Sound

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003111

Legacy Case No: PL200422

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003110

Legacy Lead Case No: PL200421

Heard: December 01, 2022, in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Shawn Rhodes Paul Gastaldi

Antonio and Rose Marie De Sousa Sharmini Mahadevan

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises out of the Tribunal’s rehearing of an Appeal by Shawn Rhodes (“Appellant”) brought under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”). Mr. Rhodes appealed the decision of the approval authority, the North Almaguin Planning Board (“NAPB”), which granted two consents to sever the property of Antonio and Rose Marie De Sousa (together the “Applicant”) located south of Highway 522, west of Balsam Creek Road in the geographic Township of McConkey (“Subject Property”).

2At the direction of the Alternate Chair in a letter dated April 5, 2022, the previous Decision of the Tribunal was rescinded, and the Appeal was ordered to be reheard.

3As this came forward as a third-party appeal, the Tribunal grants Party status to the Applicant as their participation in the Hearing is essential for the consideration of these Appeals.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4With respect to the Appeal under s. 53(19) of the Act, in order to determine whether provisional consent should be granted (with such conditions that may be required):

a) The Tribunal must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the Township and can proceed by way of application for consent;

b) If the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary, regard must then be given to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, including: that the proposed consent has regard to matters of Provincial interest; whether it is premature or in the public interest; whether there is conformity to applicable Official Plans; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

c) As with any planning decision, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and conforms to any applicable Provincial Plan. The Tribunal must also have regard to the decision of the approval authority relating to the consent application and the information and material that was before it when making that decision;

d) Pursuant to s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose such conditions as are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed consent;

e) Finally, in general, the Tribunal will decide whether the proposed consent along with any required conditions, is representative of good planning in the public interest.

HEARING

5In accordance with Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), the rehearing was conducted in writing. The Tribunal received and marked the following:

Exhibit 1: Record of the Applicant (De Sousa)

Exhibit 2: Written Submissions of the Applicant (De Sousa)

Exhibit 3: Responding Record of the Appellant

Exhibit 4: Written Submissions of the Appellant

Exhibit 5: Reply Record of the Applicant (De Sousa)

Exhibit 6: Reply Written Submissions of the Applicant (De Sousa)

6For the Appellant, two Affidavits (found in Exhibit 3) opposing the applications were provided by lay witnesses:

a) Shawn Rhodes (the Appellant who is the current owner of the Rhodes Property), sworn February 10, 2022; and

b) Elaine Brock (whose mother formerly owned both the Subject Property and Rhodes property and who herself subsequently owned the Rhodes property), sworn February 10, 2022.

7For the Applicant, Jamie Robinson, a Registered Professional Planner, provided an Affidavit (found in Exhibit 1), sworn November 1, 2022, in support of the applications for consent. Upon review and consideration of Mr. Robinson’s Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form, the Tribunal qualifies him to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. Antonio DeSousa (owner of the Subject Property) also provided an Affidavit, sworn on February 18, 2022.

8The Tribunal also had the Municipal Record available to it as forwarded by the NAPB, containing the information and documentation that was before the NAPB when the applications were initially received, considered and decided.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND EFFECT OF PROPOSAL

[9]

In his Affidavit (found in Exhibit 1), Mr. Robinson provided a detailed description of the Subject Property. It is approximately 23 hectares (“ha”) in size with approximately 458 metres (“m”) of frontage along Highway 522 and 270 m of frontage on the northern shoreline of the Pickerel River. As it is located in the unorganized Township of McConkey, the Subject Property is not designated under any Official Plan nor subject to any zoning restrictions as these do not exist in this unorganized area. Access to the Subject Property is provided from Balsam Creek Road. These lands are illustrated on the Block Map below and is all of PIN No. 52233-0107.

(Block Map found at Exhibit 1, page 79)

10The Subject Property is used for residential purposes with an existing single detached dwelling and other accessory garages on the property. It is serviced by a private septic tank and water is supplied by a well (also located on the Subject Property).

[11]

From the documents supplied, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s and Appellant’s lands were the remainder of Parcel 5081, being Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, south of highway No. 522, north of the Pickerel River, save and except the flooded lands reserved in Patent No. 5461.

(Sketch for Consent Application found at Exhibit 1, p. 115)

12The Appellant’s property (“Rhodes Property”) is adjacent to the Subject Property to the south of Balsam Creek Road. The Rhodes Property was created by severance from the original parcel described in paragraph [11] above and is located in the southeast corner of the original parcel. Plan 42R-10484 was deposited on title on December 22, 1988 to facilitate the proposed severance, and the deposit on title of Instrument No. 169413 occurred on February 7, 1989 which described the severed lands, including the reciprocal rights of ways and the Consent stamp pursuant to the Act.

13The Rhodes property consists of Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 42R-10484, together with a right-of-way over Parts 3 and 4 of Plan 42R-10284 (“Part 3 ROW”) (lands of the Applicant) and subject to a right-of-way over Part 2 of Plan 42R-10484 (“Part 2 ROW” shown on the above Sketch with the text ‘Existing Right of Way’) in favour of the retained parcel (in favour of the Applicant’s lands). These lands are illustrated as PIN No. 52233-0110 on the Block Map found above at paragraph [9].

14It is noted that the Appellant uses the Part 3 ROW to access his property. Access to the two proposed lots would be from Balsam Creek Road via the existing private road / driveway over the Part 2 ROW and Part 3 ROW.

15The applications for consent are to create two additional lots (“Consent B3” described on the above Sketch as ‘Proposed Lot 1’ and “Consent B4” described on the above Sketch as ‘Proposed Lot 2’) on the Subject Property. There is another easement (“Consent B5” described on the above Sketch as ‘Proposed 10.0 m wide Right of Way’) over a part of the Subject Property which connects the two proposed new lots to existing Rights of Way over the Part 2 ROW and the Part 3 ROW. Consent B5 creating the easement was granted by the NAPB on June 25, 2020 but is not under appeal in these proceedings.

16The application proposes to create two 1.01 ha lots while the proposed retained area would be 20.9 ha in area.

17The difference in opinion between the Appellant and the Applicant is whether there is appropriate access to the proposed new lots.

18The Appellant’s position is that the existing easement (the Part 2 ROW, which traverses his property) was not properly created and is not a legal easement and so cannot be used to access the proposed new lots. Alternatively, the Appellant submits that the easement was only created to allow pedestrian access to the Pickerel River and that allowing the two new lots to use the easement for regular access will overburden it.

19The Applicant’s position is that the proposed consents meet the policy requirements for the creation of two new shoreline residential lots, are appropriate from a land use planning perspective, have appropriate access through the existing private road / driveway over the Part 2 ROW and Part 3 ROW and will not overburden the ROW.

20The Tribunal notes that any dispute regarding the nature of the Part 2 ROW is not within its jurisdiction.

EVIDENCE

Appellant’s Evidence

21Mr. Rhodes’ stated opposition to the application for consent to create two new lots stems from the Applicant’s plan to use the Part 2 ROW lands to access the two new lots. In addition, the Appellant raised concerns regarding safety, maintenance and the effect of potential short-term rentals on the proposed severed lots.

22Mr. Rhodes highlighted that his property is “subject to a Right of Way over Part 2 (the “Part 2 ROW”) which is for the benefit of the adjacent property owned by the De Sousas” as is set out in the Transfer / Deed of Land, Instrument No. 169413 dated February 7, 1989.

23Mr. Rhodes stated that the Part 2 ROW has rarely been used by the Applicant nor their predecessors during his ownership of the property. He stated that the Part 2 ROW was intended to be used for pedestrian traffic en route to the water, and has not been, nor was it ever intended to be, used for vehicular traffic.

24Mr. Rhodes indicated that the use of the Part 2 ROW by additional vehicles would be a safety issue for his grandchildren, family and guests.

25Mr. Rhodes expressed concerns regarding convenience and maintenance stating that there is no benefit to his property if the Part 2 ROW is used for vehicular access to the two proposed lots. He stated that the Applicant gets the benefit of two new lots without having to deal with a significant increase of traffic, as well as the inconvenience and nuisance that would result.

26Mr. Rhodes went on to highlight the increased costs of such an arrangement as there is currently no maintenance agreement for the Part 2 ROW. He stated that to date, there have been very limited costs as the Part 2 ROW is rarely used by the Applicant and only for pedestrian use. However, if the proposed lots are permitted, the cost to maintain the Part 2 ROW for vehicular use would be incurred only by him (Rhodes).

27Mr. Rhodes concluded that he does not agree with Mr. Robinson’s position that the Part 2 ROW can be used for vehicular traffic to access the proposed lots and that in his (Rhodes’) opinion, to use the Part 2 ROW in this way would result in an overburdening of that ROW.

28Mr. Rhodes also stated that:

[the] issue of access is not a hypothetical issue nor is it a simple neighbour dispute. The purpose and use of the Part 2 ROW and terminus points is a matter that will have to be decided by the courts. Until this issue is determined, there is no access to the lots by the Part 2 ROW. (Exhibit 3, page 9, paragraph 10)

29He further stated that there is a locked gate at the top of the Part 2 ROW, which will remain locked until a court has determined whether vehicles can use that ROW and that the Applicant has a key to said gate.

30In her Affidavit, Ms. Brock identified that the Rhodes property and the Subject Property were previously one parcel owned by her parents which was severed into two parcels in 1989. The Subject Property was sold in 1989 (with the Applicant later becoming the property owner in 2016) while the Rhodes property was conveyed by her mother (Mary Doey) to her two children (Ms. Brock and her brother, Mark Doey) in 1999. In 2006, Ms. Brock bought her brother’s interest and owned the Rhodes property until 2013 when it was sold to Mr. Rhodes and his family.

31Ms. Brock identified that the Part 2 ROW was created by her mother in 1989 in favour of the previous owners of the Subject Property. Ms. Brock was told by her mother that the creation of the right-of-way was to give her neighbours “access over her lands to walk down to the Pickerel River … [as the] topography of the land made it easier for her neighbours to use her land as a walking path to the river.”

32Ms. Brock highlighted that during her mother’s and her own ownership of the Rhodes property, no vehicles (aside from those of the Doey / Brock family and guests) used the right-of-way. She stated that her neighbours (the previous owners of the Subject Property) never used the right-of-way for vehicular traffic and rarely for pedestrian traffic.

33She concluded that it was never her mother’s, nor her own, intention that the ROW be used for vehicles; that it was only to be a private ROW used by neighbours to walk to the river and never intended as a public access road.

Applicant’s Evidence

34It was Mr. Robinson’s overall opinion that the creation of the proposed two new lots is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (“GP”), has regard for the matters in s. 2, s. 3(5), s. 51(24) and s. 53(12) of the Act and is representative of good land use planning.

35Mr. Robinson stated in his Affidavit that from a land use planning perspective, creating two new shoreline residential lots is appropriate and that the existing driveway (on the Part 2 ROW and Part 3 ROW) would provide suitable access to the proposed lots from Balsam Creek Road.

36Mr. Robinson explained that a technical consent which re-established the Subject Property as an existing registered parcel together with the Part 2 ROW was obtained by the Applicant in April 2021. In his opinion, this means there are no issues relating to the title of the Subject Property or the ROW. The Tribunal recognizes the need for the technical severance because the original severed lot in 1988 was placed back in the same name as the retained lands and not transferred to another party before disposing of the original retained lands.

37Mr. Robinson opined that the Appellant’s concerns “relating to the attributes of the Part 2 ROW is not a planning matter relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the planning merits of Consents B3 and B4.”

38Regarding access to the site, Mr. Robinson specifically considered whether access to the proposed new lots from Balsam Creek Road through the existing driveway on the Part 2 ROW and Part 3 ROW would be appropriate. He opined that:

in rural areas and shoreline areas, access is often provided to additional cottage lots through existing easements that benefit the dominant tenement due to the size of the parcels of land and the available road network. In addition, while some lots may have water access it is also appropriate to provide vehicular access from an existing road, whether a private road or easement. (Exhibit 1, pages 14-15, paragraph 42)

39It was Mr. Robinson’s opinion that there was no applicable Official Plan in the unorganized area, nor any other policy requiring direct road access to a new lot. He stated that in rural and unorganized areas, it is common for lots to be created without direct access to a public road, and that it is also common for recreational shoreline lots to be created with access provided by easement and private road.

40Mr. Robinson specified that the existing driveway on the Part 2 ROW would support the two proposed lots and the physical characteristics (base and style) of the private road would accommodate additional lots.

41During his site visit, Mr. Robinson did not observe any road characteristics that would present safety issues and he stated that the two new lots would not overburden the private road / driveway.

42Mr. Robinson opined that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, specifically s. 1.1.6.1 and s. 1.1.6.2 as it would feature recreational dwellings, on appropriately sized lots which can be serviced by private septic systems, with water obtained from the Pickerel River.

43It was Mr. Robinson’s opinion that the proposal conforms to and does not conflict with the GP, which acts as more of an economic development tool and does not contain any specific policies regarding growth management.

44Mr. Robinson was of the opinion that the proposed consents have regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act. Specifically, he explained that there are no identified natural or mineral resources on the Subject Property, and the lot creation would not impact any ecological systems. Regarding the protection of public health and safety, Mr. Robinson highlighted that the proposed new lots are appropriately located, there is no risk of flooding or erosion hazards and there is appropriate access from Balsam Creek Road using the Part 2 ROW and the Part 3 ROW. He opined that the additional traffic created by the two proposed lots, along with that from the existing dwelling and cottages, could be accommodated by Balsam Creek Road.

45Mr. Robinson was of the opinion that the proposed consents meet the criteria outlined in s. 51(24) of the Act. He specified that the proposal was not premature, that the proposed use was permitted by the PPS, that the proposed lots were suitably sized and shaped to support new dwellings and were characteristic of shoreline development in the area. He reiterated that the existing driveway (over the Part 2 ROW and the Part 3 ROW) would provide appropriate access from Balsam Creek Road to the Subject Property, the proposed new lots and the Rhodes Property.

46Regarding the Appellant’s contention that the easement was not properly registered, it was Mr. Robinson’s opinion that there is no outstanding issue regarding the creation of the Part 2 ROW as evidenced by the technical consent obtained in April 2021.

47In summary, Mr. Robinson stated that the proposal meets all legislative and policy requirements, is an efficient use of existing infrastructure and that the existing driveway on the Part 2 ROW and Part 3 ROW will provide appropriate access to the proposed lots from Balsam Creek Road. He also stated that he supported the conditions put forward by the NAPB in their decision granting the consents.

FINDINGS

48The Tribunal notes that the Affidavits of Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Brock were both provided on February 10, 2022 in response to the Applicant’s Request for Review to the Tribunal. While the Appellant had ample time to obtain and provide expert testimony in support of their case, they opted not to do so.

49The Tribunal also notes that the evidence of Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Brock focuses on the history of the Rhodes Property and the nature and purpose of the easements.

50The Appellant’s evidence (presented through Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Brock) contends that the access to the two new lots is not appropriate as the Part 2 ROW was not properly created or intended for vehicular traffic. Mr. Robinson’s opinion evidence for the Applicant was that appropriate access is provided to the proposed new lots and that any additional traffic created by the proposed new lots could be accommodated and would not overburden the private road.

51The Tribunal recognizes that the Affidavits of both Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Brock support the belief of the Appellant that there were limitations to the Part 2 ROW. However, the Tribunal finds it clear from a review of the Deed (No. 169413) that no restrictions on the use of the Part 2 ROW were formally implemented. The technical consent also confirms this.

52The Tribunal also finds that a dispute regarding the legality or attributes of the Part 2 ROW is a matter outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Having considered the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal prefers the expert evidence of Mr. Robinson and finds that there is appropriate access to the proposed lots.

53The Appellant stated in his Affidavit that the gate on the Subject Property “will continue to be locked until a court has determined whether vehicles can use the Part 2 ROW.” However, no evidence was presented to the Tribunal indicating that the legitimacy or purpose of the Part 2 ROW is being considered in civil court. If a decision regarding the creation or attributes of the ROW were currently before a court, then the Tribunal might deem the application premature until such matter was settled. In the absence of this, the Tribunal does not find the application to be premature.

54Section 2(p) of the Act refers to the appropriate location of growth and development. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Robinson which states the proposal is appropriately located as the use is permitted under the PPS, the size and shape of the proposed lots are suitable and characteristic of other properties in the area and access to the site through the Part 2 ROW is appropriate.

55The Tribunal finds that the public interest is served by considering whether the application meets the requirements of the applicable legislation and policy framework. The Tribunal has evaluated the application in accordance with the legislative framework outlined in paragraph [4].

56Regarding the issue of safety, the Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence presented by Mr. Robinson that the additional vehicular traffic created by the two proposed lots can be appropriately accommodated by the existing access point, will not overburden the ROW and will not pose any safety concerns.

57Regarding the issue of the costs associated with maintaining the Part 2 ROW, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant (in his Affidavit from February 2022) expresses his willingness to enter into an arrangement with the Appellant regarding the ongoing maintenance of the Part 2 ROW. As a result, the Tribunal does not find the related costs to be a reason to deny the appeal.

58Regarding short term rentals, no evidence on this topic was presented by the Appellant, nor was it even mentioned by Mr. Rhodes in his Affidavit. The Tribunal notes that this possibility was raised through the Appellant’s Counsel in their Written Submissions which introduced the possibility that the two new properties could be used in this way. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal does not take a position on this issue.

59Regarding s. 51(24) of the Act which states that regard shall be had for the convenience, safety and welfare of present inhabitants, the Appellant contends that the introduction of an “unknown number of users” will inconvenience the Appellant, that maintenance of the ROW will result in extra cost and work and that access to the new lots in winter will be unsafe. The Tribunal has addressed the issue of costs and maintenance above. The Tribunal relies on the evidence of Mr. Robinson who did not identify any safety issues and who stated that the additional traffic created by the two new lots would not overburden the ROW. The Tribunal finds that the proposal will not impact the safety or welfare of the present inhabitants. In terms of convenience, the Tribunal finds that while the amount of traffic created by the two new lots may be a nuisance to the Appellant, there has not been sufficient evidence presented to demonstrate that it would cause serious inconvenience especially considering the Applicant’s willingness to work with the Appellant on future maintenance of the road.

60The Appellant contends that the Tribunal ought to consider a requirement found in the neighbouring Municipality of Powassan’s Official Plan (“Powassan OP”) when considering this application. The Tribunal points to the evidence of Mr. Robinson that the Subject Property is in an unorganized township, and there is no applicable Official Plan. The Tribunal will not apply any criteria from the Powassan OP in the consideration of the proposed consents.

61The Appellant refers to testimony heard at the original Tribunal appeal Hearing (heard by a differently constituted Panel of the Tribunal) in which Mr. Robinson is said to have stated under cross examination that it would be premature to create a new lot without access to a road. The Tribunal can only rely on the evidence currently before it. In his sworn Affidavit, Mr. Robinson’s evidence was that the application is not premature. This Panel of the Tribunal did not have evidence from Mr. Robinson stating that it would be premature to create a new lot without access to a road nor did it hear any expert evidence contesting Mr. Robinson’s position.

62Mr. Robinson’s evidence was that an application for a technical consent was filed (in November 2020) and granted by the NAPB (in April 2021). The Tribunal notes that the Appellant did not appeal the technical consent at that time, and per Mr. Robinson’s evidence, the technical consent re-establishes the Subject Property as an existing registered parcel together with the Part 2 ROW, with no restrictions imposed on the use of this ROW.

63The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not provide any compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposed consents do not meet the relevant land use planning requirements found in the PPS, the GP, the Act or any other applicable policy.

64The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the land use planning evidence of Mr. Robinson, that the proposed provisional consents are appropriate, subject to the proposed conditions. The Tribunal accepts his evidence and finds that the proposal meets all legislative and policy requirements and is, in general, representative of good planning in the public interest. As only two lots will be created, the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required.

65In so finding, due regard has been given to matters of Provincial interest, including but not limited to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities and the appropriate location of growth and development. Regard has also been given to the decision of the NAPB and the information it had available to it when making its decision.

66With respect to the matter of conditions to be imposed, the Tribunal finds that the recommended conditions, as initially required by the NAPB are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed consents. As a result, the Tribunal will impose the conditions.

ORDER

67THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are dismissed and the provisional consents are to be given subject to the following conditions:

A) Consent B3/McConkey/2020

1. That this approval applies to the creation of a new +/- 1.01 ha (+/- 2.5 acre) lot from lands described as Part Lot 32 Concession 1 REM PCL 5081 NS (353-A Balsam Creek Road), to be accessed by an easement from Balsam Creek Road.

2. Registration of an easement across Part Lot 32 Concession 1 REM PCL 8081 NS (353-A Balsam Creek Road) from Balsam Creek Road for vehicular and pedestrian access across to the new lot set out in Application B5/McConkey/2020 be approved and certified.

3. That the applicant(s) process an “On-Site Sewage System Review – Planning Act Proposal” with the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority OR a person who holds a valid Building Code Identification Number (BCIN) and is qualified to design sewage systems under Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code for the new lot OR an engineer, and report back to the NAP Board prior to seeking Certification of the subject Consent.

B) Consent B4/McConkey/2020

1. That this approval applies to the creation of a new +/- 1.01 ha (+/- 2.5 acre) lot from lands at the most westerly portion of lands known as 353-A Balsam Creek Road, described as Part Lot 32 Concession 1 REM PCL 5081 NS (353-A Balsam Creek Road), to be accessed by an easement from Balsam Creek Road.

2. Registration of an easement as set out in Application B5/McConkey/2020 be approved and certified across Part Lot 32 Concession 1 REM PCL 8081 NS (353-A Balsam Creek Road) from Balsam Creek Road for vehicular and pedestrian access across to the new lot.

3. That the applicant(s) process an “On-Site Sewage System Review – Planning Act Proposal” with the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority OR another person who holds a valid Building Code Identification Number (BCIN) and is qualified to design 20 sewage systems under Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code for the new lot OR an engineer, and report back to the NAP Board prior to seeking Certification of the subject Consent.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.