Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002819

(Formerly PL180345)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: The Manors of Belfountain Corp.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit a residential lot development with a draft plan of subdivision on a property within the Minor Urban Centre of Belfountain

Reference Number: 21T-91015C

Property Address: Mississauga Road, Part Lot 9, Concession 5 WHS

Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002819

Legacy Case No.: PL180345

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002819

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180345

OLT Case Name: The Manors of Belfountain Corp. v. Caledon (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(5.1) and (8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 2

Appellant: Belfountain Community and Planning Organization

(Appeal No. 008872)

Appellant: Town of Caledon (Appeal No. 008873)

Applicant: The Manors of Belfountain Corp.

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject: Conditions of Approval of a Development Permit Application

Description: To develop a residential lot with 75 units on a property within the Minor Urban Centre of Belfountain

Reference Number: PR/2017-2018/450

Property Address: Part Lot 8 & 9, Concession 5 WHS Mississauga Road

Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000835

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002819

Heard: February 10 to 28 2025 and March 3, 2025 by Video Hearing and closing submissions received on March 21, 2025, in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. (“MBC”)

Mark Flowers Grace O’Brien

Town of Caledon

Paula Boutis

(“Town”)

Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”)

Sarah Kromkamp Margaret McCloskey

Belfountain Community Organization (“BCO”)

David Donnelly

decision DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order relates to consolidated appeals brought pursuant to ss. 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) and an appeal brought pursuant to ss. 25(5.1) and (8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 2 (“NEPDA”), for the property legally described as Mississauga Road, Part Lot 8 and 9, Concession 5, WHS in the Town (“Subject Lands”).

2The Subject Lands are located along the east side of Shaws Creek Road, on the west side of Mississauga Road, and south of Old Main Street (Bush Street), in the Hamlet of Belfountain.

3The Subject Lands are approximately 70.3 hectares (“ha”) within the Minor Urban Centre of which 44.79 ha are proposed to be developed and the remaining 25.51 ha will be a park and open space.

4The proposed development consists of a 75-lot privately serviced residential plan of subdivision to be constructed in two phases. There will be three stormwater management blocks and street access to Shaws Creek Road. Phase 1 is proposed to include 48 residential lots and includes three stormwater management blocks, with three additional blocks to be transferred to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (“CVCA”) as a component of this first phase. Phase 2 is contingent on well monitoring and includes 27 residential lots and one block dedicated as a municipal park.

5The proposed development does not require an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) or the Town Official Plans (“TOPs”). Since the Subject Lands are within the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s (“NEC”) Development Permit Area, the Town’s Zoning By-law is not applicable.

6MBC filed an appeal against the Town for its failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision application (“DPS”) within the prescribed timelines under the Act.

7The Town and BCO filed appeals against the decision of the NEC to conditionally approve a Development Permit Application (“NEC Permit”) for the Subject Lands related to the DPS.

8Under the NEPDA for a development permit appeal, the presiding member acts as a Hearing Officer in the appeal. In this type of appeal, the Hearing Officer does not issue a Decision and Order, but instead, and pursuant to ss. 25(11) of NEPDA, they prepare a report to the Minister of Natural Resources (“Minister”).

9Noting an NEC Permit was in dispute in this Appeal, a request was previously submitted to the Tribunal to consolidate the NEC Application Appeal with the DPS Appeal to be consolidated under ss. 21(5) and 21(6) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4 (“OLTA”).

10By a decision of the Tribunal dated June 14, 2024, the Tribunal acknowledged the benefits of granting the requested consolidated hearing to make efficient use of the Tribunal’s resources and avoid duplicative hearings while also being fair and not causing prejudice to the Parties. Accordingly, the request to consolidate was granted.

11With the consolidation of the NEC and DPS Appeals (“Appeals”), and in the context of ss. 21(5) of the OLTA:

The Tribunal may make any decision on a matter in a consolidated hearing … that may be made by a person or body after the holding of the hearing.

Accordingly, the Tribunal Member stands “in the shoes of the Minister” in this consolidated hearing and can make any decision or order the Minister could make following a hearing before a Hearing Officer under the NEPDA.

12Prior to the start of this hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the Town and MBC had reached a settlement on the DPS appeal. The Tribunal was also advised the Town no longer had an objection to the NEC Permit.

EVIDENCE

13The Tribunal heard detailed evidence from eleven witnesses, all of whom were qualified to provide opinion evidence in their field of expertise, as outlined below:

Called By

Name

Field of Expertise

BCO

Garry Hunter

Hydrogeology and Civil Engineering

BCO

Leslie Stanfield

Aquatic Ecology and Landscape Hydrology

BCO

Nancy Mott

Land Use Planning

BCO

Luis Lasso Arboleda

Hydrology

BCO

Drew Haines

Development Engineering

NEC

Brandon Henderson

Land Use and Environmental Planning

MBC

Michael Wynia

Land Use and Environmental Planning

MBC

Martin Shepley

Hydrology

MBC

William Heywood

Water Resources and Storm Water Management Engineering

MBC

Anne Egan

Wastewater Engineering

MBC

Kristi Quinn

Natural Heritage and Environmental Planning

14The marked Exhibits included legislation, policies, guidelines, witness statements, studies, reports, photographs, and maps. The witnesses and counsel directed the Tribunal to specific pages of relevance to the issue.

PARTY POSITIONS

BCO

15BCO requested that the Tribunal dismiss the DPS Appeal and repeal the NEC Permit.

16BCO submitted alternatives to the Tribunal, for its consideration as follows:

• Alternative 1: the Tribunal permit the alternative proposal of BCO allowing for only 38 lots to be developed on the Subject Lands.

• Alternative 2: the Tribunal should only approve the first phase of the development proposal, and the second phase would be sought through a new application.

17BCO requested the Tribunal direct the Town and the Region to secure a domestic water well contingency fund of $1,250,000 to replace the fifty wells potentially impacted by the proposed development. BCO further requested that the funds be managed by the Town, in consultation with BCO.

MBC

18MBC requested the BCO’s appeal of the NEC Permit be dismissed, and the Tribunal confirm the NEC decision subject to the NEC Conditions and the additional conditions presented by the Town.

19MBC requested the DPS Appeal be approved, in part, and the proposed Draft Plan, subject to the Draft Plan conditions presented by the Town be approved.

20MBC noted the Order on the Draft Plan Appeal should be withheld until such time as the Tribunal is notified by the NEC and the MBC that the Development Permit has been issued. MBC further noted at the time the Order is issued, the final approval of the Draft Plan will be granted to the Town.

NEC

21The NEC requested that the Tribunal confirm its decision and approve the Development Permit subject to the conditions in paragraph [18].

The Town

22The Town supports the proposed development of MBC, subject to the NEC and Town conditions of approval.

23The Town’s new draft plan conditions are to ensure the long-term requirement to use advanced wastewater systems for the future lots in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed development. The Town’s added conditions for the DPS are as follows:

A clause shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement stating that, prior to registration for Phase 2 (if Phase 2 proceeds), the Owner is required to enter into and register on title of the subject lands an agreement or other appropriate instrument (“Agreement”) requiring the use, installation and maintenance of an advanced wastewater treatment system for each lot, which has capacity to reduce nitrate by at least 50% (“Advanced Treatment System”). Such Agreement shall, to the satisfaction of the Town and Region,

• Include clauses requiring lot owners to conduct nitrate monitoring and reporting, maintenance and replacement of any installed Advanced Treatment System;

• Require the Owner to provide the necessary financial deposit/security (“Financial Assurance”), to permit the Town or Region to carry out any of the works identified in the Agreement, if necessary; among other things, timing to pay the Financial Assurance shall also be addressed in the Agreement; and further,

• Any peer review required by the Town or Region to develop a monitoring program within the Agreement shall be funded by the Owner.

24The Town’s added conditions for the NEC Permit are as follows:

• Prior to the issuance of a development permit by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the applicant will sample wells TW1-09 and PW3 (or two replacement wells in the Phase 1 area along the northern property limit in proximity to wells TW1-09 and PW3) for a general suite of chemistry parameters, including nitrogen species, iron, manganese, sulphate, dissolved oxygen and oxygen reduction potential to satisfy the requirement for five test wells provided for in the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) Procedure D-5-4, as informed by MECP’s Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Lands Development Applications (1995). A letter shall be submitted to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Region of Peel, and Town of Caledon by a qualified professional confirming that the results satisfy MECP’s D-5-4 procedure.

• Prior to the issuance of an individual lot NEC development permit, the applicant will establish structural envelope plans for each lot.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT

25For the NEC Appeal, the Tribunal must examine and determine the following:

• Pursuant to ss. 25(12) and (14) of the NEPDA, was the NEC’s decision to conditionally approve the application for a development permit correct and need not be changed, conformity with the NEP, consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and compliance with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements under the NEPDA.

26For the DPS Appeal, the Tribunal must examine and determine the following:

• The Tribunal must be satisfied the proposed development is representative of good planning in the public interest and the proposed planning instruments must be found to: have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, be consistent with the PPS, and conform with the TOPs.

• In addition to the foregoing, the DPS must have appropriate regard for the criteria set out in ss. 51(24) of the Act and the proposed DPS conditions must be found to be reasonable and appropriate given the nature of the development. Finally, in accordance with ss. 2.1(1) of the Act, regard must be had for the decision of Town Council and the information considered by it in the course of making its decision.

ISSUES

27The issues before the Tribunal were set out in the Issues List of the Procedural Order for this Hearing, filed with the Tribunal on December 12, 2024.

28After considering the submissions and expert evidence of the Parties, the Tribunal determined the key issues for this Hearing were as follows:

• Will the proposed development have a negative impact on the water quantity and quality of the Belfountain Community?

• Will the proposed development have a negative impact on the Brook Trout and Habitat?

DECISION

29The Tribunal finds the decision of the NEC to approve the NEC Permit with conditions was correct and upon issuance of the NEC Permit, the DPS should be approved, subject to the conditions agreed to between the MBC and the Town.

30It should be noted that, despite the alternatives presented by BCO for the consideration of the Tribunal, the Tribunal does not evaluate hypothetical alternatives, nor does it measure the proposal under appeal against such alternatives, but rather against the relevant legislation and policy framework.

31The matters before the Tribunal are solely related to a proposed development. The Tribunal finds the request of BCO to direct the Town and the Region to secure a domestic water well contingency fund of $1,250,000 to replace the fifty wells potentially impacted by the proposed development, with funds managed by the Town, in consultation with BCO, outside of its scope and not subject to consideration by the Tribunal.

ANALYSIS and FINDINGS

The Proposed Development will not have a Negative Impact on the Water Quantity and Quality of the Belfountain Community

Agreed Statement of Facts

32On November 6, 2024, the hydrology experts of MBC and BCO had a virtual meeting resulting in the following Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASOF”):

• The sand and gravel (glaciofluvial outwash) comprising the majority of the overburden of the Subject Lands is very permeable and has a high infiltration rate.

• The dolostone aquifer (mainly Gasport Formation) underlying the overburden of the Subject Lands is a productive aquifer with some variability.

• The shale (Cabot Head Formation) underlying the dolostone aquifer is a regional aquitard. Any future domestic water supply wells for the Manors of Belfountain Project will not penetrate further than the top of the Cabot Head Formation.

• There is an area of elevated nitrate in the Manors of Belfountain Phase 2 area.

• There is an area of elevated sulphate with groundwater concentrations higher than 500 mg/l in the dolostone aquifer in the central portion of the Phase 1 area of the Subject Lands.

Hydrology

33Dr. Martin Shepley’s evidence focused on the first instance from the group pumping test completed for proposed development in 2024, and consideration of previous investigations, and where relevant, based on the new findings, updating the understanding of the hydrogeology.

34Dr. Shepley stated the Subject Lands lie within the West Credit River Watershed of the CVCA. He noted the Source Protection Committee of the CVCA (“SPC”) identified potential surface water stress and potential groundwater stress as being low. Dr. Shepley continued that this was identified in CVCA Reports provided to the SPC identifying water balances, how much water is in the system and where it comes from.

35Dr. Shepley advised the proposed development will have a private water supply well for each lot, taking water from the dolostone aquifer underlying the Subject Lands. Wastewater disposal will occur through a tertiary (level IV) treatment system. The proposed development will include installation of storm water management facilities having been designed to maintain infiltration and subsequent recharge quantity to groundwater with no adverse effect on groundwater quantity or quality.

36Dr. Shepley summarized the hydrogeological investigations and peer reviews conducted on the Subject Lands that focussed on:

• Missing borehole logs from previous reports.

• Accuracy of borehole/well grid coordinates and elevation data.

• Adequacy of the well network and monitoring of groundwater level and quality on the Subject Lands.

• Drainage and infiltration.

• Impacts the proposed development will have on water quantity and quality.

• A 72-hour group pumping test for the full developed proposal according to the phased development, private well survey of the Belfountain Hamlet within 500 m of the Area of Interest (“AOI”), monitoring/contingency plan and well design.

• Addressing some of the peer review comments including the provision of borehole logs from all previous investigation, the addition of new monitoring wells, surveying of relevant previous wells and new wells, exceedance of pumping test deemed necessary, additional groundwater level and quality sampling and field observations of drainage/infiltration.

37Dr. Shepley stated based on his analysis, the proposed development is in a subwatershed with abundant available groundwater relative to the magnitude of the proposed groundwater undertaking. He continued:

• The group pumping test confirmed the Zone of Influence (“ZOI”) will be contained within the perimeter of the Subject Lands, with no negative effects expected beyond the perimeter.

• The infiltration characteristics of the overburden and inclusion of the main features of the RB1 ephemeral creek within the storm water management (“SWM”) facility will see no reduction of infiltration post development.

• The groundwater quality will be protected with appropriate treatment and measures for wastewater disposal.

38Dr. Shepley confirmed potential hydrogeological impacts have been adequately assessed and the proposed development will not result in a deterioration of groundwater quantity/quality in the hamlet and surrounding community due to the following:

• The subwatershed has low potential groundwater stress and the proposed development will not affect the stress assessment.

• The groundwater flow across the Subject Lands is predominantly to the north towards the Belfountain Conservation Area and mostly, not towards the north-west where the Hamlet of Belfountain and the majority of private wells are located, as identified by the monitoring wells installed in 2024.

• Well yield is dependent on the formation of hydraulic properties and the adjacent hydraulic boundaries. The closest hydraulic boundary to Belfountain Hamlet is the West Credit River, which is not under stress. This means poorly producing wells in the Belfountain Hamlet are due to adverse hydraulic properties of the formation(s) to which a number of the wells are completed. The wells with static water levels below the West Credit Riverbed, particularly, the wells in the Cabot Head Shales, which was identified as an Aquitard in the ASOF. This condition would not occur if the wells were situated in a good aquifer.

• Elevated nitrates occur in the Phase 2 area of the proposed development. The source of the elevated nitrates is undetermined as is why the Phase 1 area of the proposed development, but could be related to the following:

o Thinness of the sand and gravel overburden and saturation zone, in the Phase 2 area.

o The occurrence of the Port Stanley Till above parts of the dolostone aquifer in Phase 1, which confines and acts to protect the dolostone aquifer.

o The additional nitrate-low, good-quality runoff water from ephemeral creek RB1 infiltrates in Phase 1 and acts to dilute nitrate concentrations.

o The absence of agriculture immediately up hydraulic gradient of Phase 1.

39Dr. Shepley opined the proposed development will not cause negative impacts to hydrogeology, including infiltration of surface water and precipitation to maintain groundwater quantity/quality within the community.

40Garry Hunter asserted the proposed development should be refused based on lot density allocation, stormwater management design and the failure to undertake groundwater quality assessments within 500 m of the site boundary in accordance with MECP D-5-4 Guidelines including Belfountain Village and Caledon Mountain Estates and specifically, at Belfountain Public School and residences within 100 m of the Subject Lands’ boundaries.

41Mr. Hunter stated an offsite groundwater quality assessment is required to inform development on the Subject Lands including lot density and limits for sustainable development.

42Mr. Hunter characterized the Subject Lands as hydrogeologically sensitive with highly permeable soils and fractured rock aquifers. He continued the Subject Lands have very high infiltration rates and have very limited subsurface capabilities for on-site sewage effluent attenuation, except for groundwater dilution.

43Mr. Hunter expressed concerns regarding impacts on the domestic water supply of Belfountain residents being impacted by the proposed development due to shallow aquifer.

44Mr. Hunter identified the monitoring well at TW 4 (“TW4”), which is the low water level convergence flow zone. He further identified that estimated flows from TW4 are 80% to the Belfountain Community and 20% to the West Credit River.

45Mr. Hunter stated there is little to no capability for residential development until TW4 nitrate levels are lowered to 1 to 2 mg/l.

46Mr. Hunter expressed concerns on the Subject Lands regarding nitrate levels. Mr. Hunter advised the existing average nitrate loading is approaching the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2012 (“CCME”) limit of 3 mg/l for long-term protection of aquatic life (Brook Trout). He further advised the CCME nitrate limit is the appropriate water quality design objective for groundwater flowing from the MBC site pre- and post-development.

47Mr. Hunter commented the proposed development will result in all stream and ground water in the Belfountain Community, exceeding the CCME limit.

48Mr. Hunter identified that MBC and previous landowners have made no effort to identify and mitigate the source of the nitrate loading on the Subject Lands.

49Mr. Hunter indicated due to the time lag for contaminants to reach the Subject Land’s boundaries, short term monitoring as proposed by the agencies will not be effective for MBC Site Plan Phase 2 decision making. He further indicated this is a critical failure in the proposed conditions imposed on the Application and extended multi-year monitoring of future resident private wells on the Subject Lands will be necessary to assess development impacts.

50Mr. Hunter advised any proposed lots identifying high total dissolved solids and sulfates should be eliminated from the development.

51Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the proposed individual lot water treatment may not solve the issue of a high-quality raw water drinking supply. He continued the proposed treatment of raw water also introduces the issue of on-site disposal of treatment wastewater, which has not been addressed.

52Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the proposed individual lot water treatment may not solve the issue of a high-quality raw water drinking supply. He continued the proposed treatment of raw water also introduces the issue of on-site disposal of treatment wastewater, which has not been addressed.

53Mr. Hunter opined there is no mitigation plan in place for the proposed development and monitoring alone is not appropriate.

54Mr. Hunter summarized from a hydrogeological perspective, the development proposal is excessive, and the end result is an urban versus rural estate character.

55Mr. Hunter provided a review of several PPS policies. Mr. Hunter summarized the proposed development was inconsistent with the PPS and does not demonstrate the proposed development can be sustained by the water resources upon which services are relied upon, is feasible and financially viable, protects human health and safety and aligns with municipal planning.

56Mr. Hunter opined the proposed development fails to protect the hydrogeological integrity of the Belfountain area, specifically groundwater and quality of groundwater, as it relates to the existing public and private wells.

57Luis Lasso Arboleda (“Mr. Lasso”) was a summonsed witness for BCO. A Will-Say Statement was completed on his behalf through BCO Counsel.

58Mr. Lasso is currently the Program Manager for Water Resources Planning at the Region. Mr. Lasso was qualified to provide expert evidence in hydrogeology.

59Mr. Lasso provided comments and recommendations regarding the MS Groundwater Report in an email correspondence summarizing the report that shows satisfactory results, and the Region found the report satisfactory for the groundwater supply needed for proposed development.

Findings

60The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence presented by Dr. Shepley and is satisfied the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the water quantity and quality for the Belfountain Community.

61The Tribunal finds that the approach and methodology of MBC working with the approval agencies are addressed through the conditions for the NEC Permit and the DPS for impacts to water quantity and quality.

62The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that subject to conditions of approval, in addition to the Town and the NEC, the development proposal was supported by the Region, CVCA and requisite Provincial and Federal ministries.

63The Tribunal support of the proposed development is due to the significant number of reports, studies and revisions to ensure a reasonable and precautionary approach was undertaken by MBC. This is demonstrated by the phased approach and ongoing monitoring/testing to ensure no negative water quality or quantity impacts on the Subject Lands or properties in the Belfountain Community before initiating Phase 2 of the proposed development.

64MBC provided evidence that the Subject Lands had been subject to extensive hydrogeological investigations to ensure residents of the Belfountain Community would not be negatively impacted by a proposed development.

65To support the previous hydrogeological investigations, Dr. Shepley conducted a 72-hour Group Pumping Test to confirm the residents of the Belfountain Community would not be negatively impacted by the proposed development. Of note, there was no complaints during the test and Mr. Hunter acknowledged in cross-examination the test was extensive and thorough.

66Mr. Hunter accepted the results of the group pumping test but had difficulty with the matter of determination of the ZOI established by Dr. Shepley.

67Dr. Shepley determined the ZOI was entirely within the boundaries of the Subject Lands. Mr. Hunter determined, through his process, that the ZOI extended slightly beyond the property boundary.

68The Tribunal is satisfied with the ZOI presented by Dr. Shepley based on his explanation of the ZOI was determined by placement of the wells, an increased pumping rate and duration in excess of the D-5-5 Guidelines resulting in the draw down being confined to the Subject Lands.

69Of note, to the Tribunal was the acknowledgement of Mr. Lasso from the Region who confirmed the Region was satisfied with both the group pumping test and survey of private wells, despite the low participation rate. It is also noted that no impacts during the pumping test was disclosed by the residents who participated in the survey nor were there complaints of impacts from the Belfountain Community.

70Dr. Shepley presented contour mapping from the groundwater flows data to and from the Subject Lands. By analyzing the contours, Dr. Shepley determined the groundwater predominantly flows north to the West Credit River, but that a smaller portion, flows northwest towards Belfountain Creek. Dr. Shepley explained he could not present exact percentages for groundwater flow direction but stated his conclusion is consistent with prior reports.

71During his testimony, Mr. Hunter advised that 80% of the groundwater from the Subject Lands flowed towards Belfountain Creek, 20% to the West Credit River and spoke of a moraine dam on the Subject Lands. The term moraine dam was not previously identified by Mr. Hunter and he diverged from previous hydrogeological studies for flows on the Subject Lands. When questioned under cross-examination, Mr. Hunter stated all paths lead to TW4 and that groundwater flows from areas of lower elevation to areas of higher elevation was a coincidence.

72Under cross-examination, Mr. Hunter was questioned on the MBC hydrogeological studies being accepted by peer review and approval authorities. Mr. Hunter responded the agencies had not been fully informed and received his report but ignored it. No evidence was presented to substantiate this claim.

73The Tribunal accepts the groundwater flow results of MBC predominantly flowing northward as the analysis was consistent through multiple studies, peer review and acceptance of the approval agencies.

74Mr. Hunter stated that at a number of test wells and monitoring wells, there was the presence of total coliforms above detection limits suggesting the Subject Lands may be a GUDI site. MBC presented evidence that identified an exceedance in accordance with ODWS for total at one of the wells and it was determined to be an error.

75Both Parties are in agreement that nitrate levels are below the 10 mg/l on the Subject Lands, ranging from 0.1 mg/l to 8.13 mg/l. MBC evidence demonstrated the highest level of nitrates are in the Phase 2 area, which will not be developed if Phase 1 water quality is not acceptable. Dr. Shepley stated that the high level of nitrates was likely linked to agriculture use and the Cole Report prepared in 2020 identified a development with a similar geology to the Subject Lands that demonstrated nitrate levels dropped significantly over a ten-year period after the development occurred and agricultural operations ceased. BCO’s position was road salt and fertilizer were the source of the nitrates. BCO offered no evidence that could be contested and relied on statements from Dr. Ken Howard who was not a witness at the Hearing.

76Mr. Hunter provided results from water quality testing conducted in December 2024, for nine off-site properties and one spring. The tests did not include the four households that agreed to the MBC testing. The results showed that the nitrate levels were below 3 mg/l. Mr. Hunter conceded he had not undertaken any survey of existing individual wastewater treatment systems in the Belfountain Community or assessed the extent to which they may be contributing to current nitrate levels in the private wells and spring that were sampled.

77The Tribunal is satisfied that there is appropriate technical evidence, mitigation measures and draft conditions that are reasonable, relevant and necessary to ensure the proposed development will not have a negative impact to water quantity and quality for the Belfountain Community.

78The Tribunal finds that the proposed development meets the required legislative tests with respect to hydrogeology.

Stormwater and Engineering

79William Heywood’s evidence was in the discipline of civil engineering, specifically water resources and stormwater management engineering.

80Mr. Heywood confirmed the proposed SWM design ensures the proposed development will not result in more runoff than what is existing. He further confirmed the design relies on infiltration as the primary method to drain stormwater in the proposed development and any excess run-off will be directed to storm sewers to the SWM ponds.

81Mr. Heywood explained the oil grit separators will provide pre-treatment to remove contaminants before entering the SWM ponds.

82Mr. Heywood testified the SWM ponds are oversized to capture and control run-off from two back-to-back 100-year storms. Mr. Heywood emphasized this was the first time he designed for this level of precaution as it had not been requested on previous projects he worked on.

83Mr. Heywood opined the SWM solution for the proposed development is in keeping with the PPS, the TOPS and MECP guidelines.

84Mr. Heywood reviewed concerns expressed by BCO regarding SWM ponds and wells. Mr. Heywood confirmed the following:

• Measures to address mitigation and impacts will be done at the detailed design stage.

• The SWM ponds have been designed based on the latest MECP criteria, which takes into consideration human health as a critical concern. The groundwater associated with the aquifer is located approximately 12 to 20 metres below ground providing adequate filtration for the removal of solids which carry most contaminants.

• The storm sewers will be designed to collect the drainage associated with the roadways and directs it to the SWM facilities where contaminants can be more effectively removed.

• Rear yard catch basins will be replaced with rear yard sumps to allow infiltration of storm runoff from the roofs and rear draining yards.

• Preliminary Design was reviewed by the Town, the Region, CVCA and the NEC all of which deemed it satisfactory.

• The rear yard catch basins will be implemented with Low Impact Development (“LID”) measures that will infiltrate lot and roof run-off to promote groundwater recharge and this will be included in Phase 2.

• The impervious areas, road and driveways, form only a small part of the overall developed area, which will be infiltrated after treatment in the SWM facilities.

85Anne Egan’s evidence reviewed the hydrogeological and functional servicing work completed to support the proposed development and proposed sewage servicing. Ms. Eagan also analyzed the development proposal’s conformity to relevant policies and guidelines, and the potential of adverse effects to groundwater quality.

86Ms. Egan identified nitrate contaminants are a concern with respect to human health impacts and advised the Ontario Drinking Water Standard (“ODWS”) for nitrates is 10 milligrams/litre (“mg/l”).

87Ms. Egan advised there has been historic testing of twelve wells on the Subject Lands demonstrated higher concentrations of nitrates are on the eastern portion of the Subject Lands with no concentration exceedances beyond 10 mg/l. She further advised the recent results in 2024, from the group pumping test, there were no concentration exceedances beyond 10 mg/l.

88Ms. Egan referenced Dr. Shepley’s comments that it is generally accepted that elevated nitrates in groundwater come from anthropogenic sources, particularly from agriculture and other sources of elevated nitrate concentrations are very unlikely.

89Ms. Egan stated she relied on Dr. Shepley’s opinion that the use of the Subject Lands for agricultural purposes, and historical fertilizer application, is interpreted to be the main source of the elevated existing nitrate concentrations in the groundwater on the Subject Lands.

90Ms. Egan provided an overview of the proposed wastewater treatment system which is classified under the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”) as a Level IV wastewater treatment system (“Waterloo Biofilter”). She explained the Waterloo Biofilter is a frequently used system, which has been around since the 1990s and can reduce between 50%-65% of total nitrogen from effluent. She continued with what she described as “add-on units,” up to 95% of the nitrogen can be removed from the effluent.

91Ms. Egan stated the hydrogeological studies for the proposed development included an evaluation of the potential for the proposed sewage systems to impact local groundwater quality. She continued the evaluation was completed using the methodology outlined in the MECP D-5-4 Procedures.

92Ms. Egan advised the proposed development has adequate and efficient sewage services. She further advised the proposed sewage services will not have any adverse impact to human health and safety as the nitrate levels are expected to be below ODWS standard of 10 mg/l.

93Ms. Egan stated the potential impacts of the individual sewage systems were evaluated and documented in the Cole 2020 Report, which includes a nitrate impact assessment completed in accordance with MECP D-5-4 Guidelines. Ms. Egan continued the MECP D-5-4 Guidelines informed the 75 individual sewage treatment systems are capable of producing effluent with a nitrogen concentration of 20 mg/l, which is then discharged into the subsurface leaching beds resulting in nitrate concentration in the groundwater at the property boundary would be 2.52 mg/l, less than the ODWS of 10 mg/l, meeting the MECP D-5-4 Guidelines and not predicted to have potential for long term impacts on groundwater quality.

94Ms. Egan opined the proposed development is consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS for the use of individual onsite sewage services. She further opined there will be no negative impacts to groundwater quality due to the following:

• The nitrate impact assessment is conservative as it only relies on dilution through infiltration, and infiltration values used in the assessment are an underestimate of the actual infiltration.

• Provincial guidelines can be met with the use of conventional septic tank and leaching bed technology. The proposed use of onsite sewage treatment units with the ability to remove 50 to 65% of the total nitrogen, discharging an effluent nitrate concentration of 20 mg/l into the subsurface, provides an additional factor of safety to protect off site groundwater users.

• The predominant direction of groundwater flow is toward the north, and not toward the majority of existing water wells to the northwest of the Site.

• Higher levels of existing background nitrates are primarily in the area of Phase 2 of the proposed development and are expected to decline upon cessation of agricultural activities on the Site.

• The proposed monitoring program will provide data to verify there are no adverse nitrate trends as a result of Phase 1 prior to the implementation of Phase 2. This provides an additional factor of safety over and above the already conservative assessment of potential nitrate impacts.

95Ms. Egan stated the proposed wastewater servicing strategy, including individual sewage treatment units and leaching beds on each lot, conforms to and does not conflict with the relevant policies of the NEP.

96Drew Haines was a summonsed witness for BCO. A Will-Say Statement was completed on his behalf through BCO Counsel.

97Mr. Haines is the Manager of Development Engineering for the Town. Mr. Haines was qualified to provide expert evidence in development engineering.

98Mr. Haines advised the SWM design is appropriate and satisfies the requirements of the Town and meets MECP standards. He further advised the final design and the details can be addressed at the detailed design stage and the Draft Plan Conditions of Approval are appropriate.

99Mr. Haines confirmed the Environmental Management Plan (“EMP”) compliance can be ensured through securities as required through a subdivision agreement. The EMP is secured through NEC’s Conditions.

Findings

100The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Heywood and Ms. Egan. The Tribunal found the oral testimony of Mr. Haines supported the positions of the MBC witnesses.

101The design incorporates a “back-to-back” 100-year storm design and the draft conditions are appropriate to meet MECP standards. The design utilizes infiltration to drain stormwater off the Subject Lands and will predominantly occur on the planned lots. Excess run-off will occur through a system of storm sewers, SWM ponds and oil grit separators.

102Both Messrs. Heywood and Haines confirmed dry wells were requested by the Town and the SWM ponds will act as outlets during frozen ground conditions. Messrs. Heywood and Haines both advised that refinements to the design could occur at the detailed design stage, including the possible removal of dry wells.

103Mr. Hunter expressed concern for the efficacy of the Waterloo Biofilter Level IV wastewater treatment system largely due to effluent nitrate levels above 20 mg/l found at the Belfountain School, that uses the Waterloo Biofilter.

104Ms. Egan stated a determination of a wastewater treatment system effectiveness cannot be determined without knowing the starting nitrate level. Ms. Egan theorized that the school’s Waterloo Biofilter could be reducing more than 50% of nitrates if the starting level is above 40 mg/l, which she explained was common for schools due to the influent having a larger concentration of urine than residential properties.

105Although there is no requirement for nitrate sampling of wastewater treatment systems, the Town and MBC have agreed as a condition of approval nitrate level monitoring and the use of advance wastewater treatment systems will be legally enforceable by the Town and on future landowners through development agreements.

106The Tribunal is satisfied that, on the totality of the evidence, the stormwater management and engineering for the proposed development demonstrated appropriate technical rationale, mitigation measures and draft conditions that are reasonable, relevant and necessary to ensure the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the water quantity and quality for the Belfountain Community.

107The Tribunal finds that the proposed development meets the required legislative tests with respect to stormwater management and engineering.

Issue 2: The Proposed Development will not have a Negative Impact on the Brook Trout and Habitat

Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASOF”)

108On November 13, 2024, the natural heritage experts of MBC and BCO had a virtual meeting resulting in the following ASOF as follows:

• An Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) was submitted by Savanta in March 2018.

• An EIS Addendum (“Addendum”) was submitted by Beacon Environmental in June 2020.

• Natural features including wetlands, woodlands, and drainage features on the property have been appropriately identified and delineated.

• Study related to headwater RB-1 has been conducted using appropriate methodology and the conclusions reached are appropriate.

• Belfountain Creek and the West Credit River are located off-site of the subject property to the northeast.

• The headwaters of Belfountain Creek are located within approximately 170 m of the subject property boundary.

• The off-site watercourses, namely the West Credit River and Belfountain Creek, are known habitat and spawning areas for Brook Trout.

109The Parties acknowledged a measurement error in the ASOF for the distance from the Subject Lands to adjacent headwaters of Belfountain Creek.

110Kristi Quinn was qualified in the field of natural heritage and environmental planning. Ms. Quinn reviewed the work completed to support the proposed development based on her area of expertise. Ms. Quinn also analyzed the development proposal’s conformity to relevant policies and guidelines, and the potential of adverse effects to the brook trout and natural habitat.

111Ms. Quinn opined that brook trout will not be harmed as a result of the proposed development relying on the evidence of Dr. Shepley, Ms. Egan and the magnitude of the studies and reports that concluded conducted that concluded nitrate levels from the Subject Lands would be negligible by the time they reach Belfountain Creek and there are no anticipated adverse impacts to off-site features as a result of the proposed development.

112Ms. Quinn highlighted the following:

• The EIS conducted a Headwater Drainage Feature (“HDF”) Assessment of the off-site fish habitat, 120 m away from the property boundary (that is not a significant wildlife habitat), finding no long-term changes would occur provided the surface water and groundwater balance in the HDFs can be maintained.

• The predicted average nitrate concentration in the groundwater leaving the Subject Lands for the entire development (inclusive of Phase 2) is 2.52 mg/l. This is below the CCME 3.0 mg/l guideline.

• Most of the groundwater from the Subject Lands, particularly, the portions with higher nitrate concentrations, flows towards the West Credit River and not Belfountain Creek.

• The distance from Belfountain Creek is in excess of 100 m away from the property and the Open Space block, being an estimated 170 m.

• Ms. Egan confirmed nitrate levels at the property boundary would be diluted as groundwater travels this distance and flows through wetlands and forested areas, which are ideal for nitrate attenuation, and that the nitrate levels from the site would be negligible by the time they reach Belfountain Creek.

• The Cole reports, the EIS and Addendum, and the review of public agencies including the CVCA, who do not anticipate adverse impacts to offsite features as a result of the proposed development.

113Ms. Quinn opined that the proposed development is appropriate from a natural heritage perspective and meets all applicable legislation and policy requirements.

114Leslie Stanfield was qualified in the area of aquatic ecology and landscape hydrology.

115Mr. Stanfield stated the Belfountain Creek is a very unique, sensitive cold-water fish habitat for Brook Trout. He confirmed 3.0 mg/l of nitrate is the long-term water quality guideline for protection of Brook Trout, and that any prolonged exposure to nitrate can be lethal to Brook Trout, eggs and embryos.

116Mr. Stanfield stated that upon review of Ms. Quinn’s witness statement and the OMNR Natural Heritage Manual (“Heritage Manual”), he found the forest incorrectly classified as FOD7-2 as Fresh-Moist White Cedar Hardwood Mixed Forest area and it should be classified as SWC3 as it is a White Cedar Organic Coniferous Swamp Ecosite.

117Mr. Stanfield commented that the above Ecological Land Classification (“ELC”) community is representative of a groundwater discharge zone with multiple springs and seeps in this forest. He continued that the ELC is a contiguous wetland/headwater discharge zone that supplies the source discharges to Belfountain Creek.

118Mr. Stanfield advised that the measurements should be from the proposed property line of the Subject Lands from recent surveys of the SWC3 Community are 103 m from the forest boundary; 124 m from the SWC3 boundary and 138 m from the first major discharge spring.

119Mr. Stanfield opined the proposed development will create an impact on the natural heritage features as the buffers do not mitigate groundwater quantity or quality but only surface flows.

120Mr. Stanfield expressed concern that the EIS does not appropriately identify or assess adjacent and natural heritage features.

121Mr. Stanfield adopts Mr. Hunter’s opinion that:

• The majority of groundwater flow is from the Subject Lands and converges on Belfountain Creek and Treehouse Creek.

• The dominant flow is not towards the Belfountain Conservation Area east of Old Main Street and Mississauga Road as identified by Dr. Shepley.

• Groundwater mounding and measurable increased groundwater discharge will occur to Treehouse Creek from the west side of the site and groundwater discharge will be reduced from the east side of the site to Belfountain Creek.

• Nitrates from existing sources and from development sewage effluent will be increased in the groundwater drinking water supplies.

122Mr. Stanfield stated he would not recommend the proposed development or the BCO alterative plan.

123Mr. Stanfield maintained the proposed development is not consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS, Heritage Manual, NEP or TOPs.

Findings

124The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence presented by Ms. Quinn relying on the hydrology findings of Dr. Shepley and Ms. Egan and finds that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the Brook Trout and Habitat.

125The Tribunal has already determined that it preferred the finding of the MBC hydrogeological experts over Mr. Hunter’s findings in this matter.

126Accordingly, to the extent that Mr. Stanfield’s opinions and evidence relied upon Mr. Hunter’s conclusions on groundwater flows, discharge and nitrates, the Tribunal was not persuaded by Mr. Stanfield’s conclusions.

127Mr. Stanfield opined that the approval public authorities were given incorrect hydrogeologic information which omitted crucial information about adjacent sensitive fish habitat. Mr. Stanfield provided no evidence to support this position, nor did he advise the CVCA of his concerns.

128Mr. Stanfield acknowledged that the Brook Trout population is currently healthy despite Dr. Shepley demonstrating that groundwater nitrate levels in the Phase 2 area exceeded 3.0 mg/l since 2015.

129The Natural Heritage Manual identifies that a planning authority may choose to tailor its requirements regarding the appropriate level of effort for the adjacent lands study to take into account existing development, existing land use entitlements and the existing land use fabric but are still required to complete an EIS or other study where warranted. Mr. Stanfield, in his overview of the Heritage Manual, failed to reference this section (s. 4.4.2.1).

130The Tribunal finds that on the totality of the evidence, there is appropriate technical rationale, mitigation measures and the draft conditions that are reasonable, relevant and necessary to ensure the proposed development will not have an impact on the brook trout, habitat or natural heritage.

131The Tribunal finds that the proposed development meets the required legislative tests with respect to natural heritage.

The Applicable Legislative Requirements

132Messrs. Wynia and Henderson (“The Planners”) stated that their respective opinions are based on the reports and information provided by the Applicant, comments from applicable review agencies including the CVCA, the Town, Region, Provincial ministries, and conditions in the NEC staff report dated July 20, 2023.

133The Planners agree that the proposed development for the NEC Permit and DPS have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of s. 2 of the Act, specifically related to the following:

• The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

• The conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;

• The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

• The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

• The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

• The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

• The protection of public health and safety;

• The appropriate location of growth and development;

• The promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe,

accessible, attractive and vibrant; and,

• The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.

134The Planners agree that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS as follows:

• Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development.

• Land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources, optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities and support active transportation.

• Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

135The Planners agree that the proposed development conforms with the policies, objectives and criteria of NEP as follows:

• Growth and development in Minor Urban Centres shall be compatible with and provide for the protection of natural heritage features and functions, the protection of hydrologic features and functions.

• The formation of new lots are directed to those locations that are the least environmentally sensitive.

• Lot creation shall be subject to conformity with official plans and/or secondary plans and, where applicable, zoning by-laws that are not in conflict with the NEP and the criteria set out under Part 2 Development Criteria.

• Ensuring hydrologic features and functions including the quality, quantity and character of groundwater and surface water, at the local and watershed level, are protected and where possible enhanced.

• Protecting and, where possible, enhancing natural heritage features and functions, in order to maintain the diversity and connectivity of the continuous natural environment.

136The Planners agree that the development proposal conforms with the relevant policies of the TOPS including protecting, maintaining and enhancing groundwater resources; eliminating or minimizing negative potential land use impacts on headwater recharge and discharge areas, groundwater aquifers, producing wells, stream base flow, surface water, downstream aquatic systems and related natural systems; protecting, maintaining, and, as appropriate, enhancing and restoring ecosystem functions and processes vital to the integrity of communities (both natural and cultural); protecting, maintaining, and, as appropriate, enhancing and restoring physical and biological systems and features that support ecosystem integrity and associated functions, processes, attributes and values.

137The Planners agree that subject to the hydrogeological information provided by MBC and reviewed by the relevant planning authorities, and subject to the conditions of approval set out in the final NEC staff report, the proposed development adequately assesses impacts on:

• Quantity and quality of groundwater, as it relates to the existing public and private wells within the Belfountain Community.

• Infiltration of surface water and precipitation to maintain groundwater quantity and quality within the Belfountain Community.

• Quantity of groundwater and quality of groundwater as it relates to the existing springs, seeps and Brook Trout Habitat.

• Natural heritage features such as woodlands, connectivity, wetlands and species-at-risk habitat of the surrounding landscape.

138The Planners agree that, subject to the information provided by MBC and reviewed by the relevant planning authorities, the proposed development will not cause an unacceptable increase in traffic or traffic safety issues in the Belfountain Community.

139The Planners agree that the development proposal provides an appropriate transition to adjacent and surrounding areas, the proposed buffers are adequate, and the development is compatible with the existing community.

140The Planners agree that the development proposal fits within the character of adjacent and surrounding lands.

141The Planners agree that the development proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

142The Planners agree that the conditions of the NEC approval as set out in the NEC staff report recommending approval dated July 20, 2023 are appropriate.

143Mr. Wynia advised the DPS should be approved, subject to the conditions presented and agreed upon between the Town and MBC.

144Nancy Mott was a summonsed witness for BCO as a land use planner. A Will-Say Statement was completed on her behalf through BCO Counsel.

145Ms. Mott was not a signatory to the ASOF.

146Ms. Mott advised she was previously employed at the NEC as a Senior Planner. Ms. Mott opined the NEPDA and the Act approvals for the proposed development are not consistent with and do not conform to the various policies, planning statements and official plans before the Tribunal such as the promotion of compact development, efficient use of land and adequate housing.

147Ms. Mott stated the residents generated by the proposed development will consume virtually all of the population allocated to hamlets in Caledon and cited a 2018 letter from the Town in support of this concern.

148Ms. Mott commented, “estate type development” is inconsistent with current land use planning policy, which promotes compact development and the efficient use of land. Ms. Mott further remarked there is no shortage of large “executive” houses at market prices.

149Ms. Mott’s position is only Phase 1 should be considered and it is premature to approve Phase 2. Phase 2 should require a separate application.

150Ms. Mott reviewed the positions of Messrs. Stanfield and Hunter. Ms. Mott stated that the DPS approval is premature due to off-site impacts and fish habitat.

151Ms. Mott advised she was concerned about the enforcement of urban design guidelines.

152Ms. Mott opined that the Phase 2 Draft Plan Conditions didn’t adequately address her concerns of water quantity/quality and land use compatibility.

153Ms. Mott summarized the proposed development is not good planning and should not proceed for the following reasons:

• The proposal is not compatible with the natural environment and will prevent the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding lands.

• The proposal conflicts with the NEP and the PPS.

Findings

154Ms. Mott’s reference to population allocation concerns referenced a 2018 letter from the Town. Ms. Mott appeared to be unaware that the position of Town staff had changed, and a more recent letter stated the proposed development will not place undue hardship on the ability of the municipality to adequately accommodate population balances within its hamlets and that the TOPs identify that the population allocations are a guide.

155Ms. Mott under cross-examination conceded there is no restriction on large lot residential development in rural areas where individual on-site water and wastewater services are common.

156The Tribunal found Ms. Mott’s evidence challenging due to a focus on hydrogeological concerns and impacts to brook trout, which are areas beyond her expertise.

157Ms. Mott retired from the NEC in 2022 and it appeared she was not current on all the relevant studies, submissions, and reports that have occurred since her retirement. An example was a lack of awareness of the results of the pumping test and the 2024 monitoring and contingency plan which was acceptable to the NEC and Region.

158The Tribunal accepts the evidence presented by Messrs. Wynia and Henderson, in its entirety, and finds the applicable legislative requirements for the NEC Permit and DPS have been adequately addressed for the proposed development.

SUMMARY

159The Tribunal finds the approach undertaken by MBC with the appropriate public agencies has resulted in an extensive review process and conditions of approval that are relevant, necessary and reasonable to protect the Belfountain Community and brook trout from adverse impacts tied to the proposed development.

160The Tribunal agrees with MBC that it has employed a precautionary approach to the proposed development. In Martone v. Guelph-Eramosa (Township), 2008 CarswellOnt 7469 (O.M.B.) (“Martone”), the issue before the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) was whether or not the proposed development on 0.5 acre lots serviced by using on-site private systems would result in any negative environmental impacts to the ground water, specifically pertaining to nitrate loading; and, whether appropriate measures had been taken to ensure stormwater and run-off from the development was adequately addressed. The OMB found the following:

a. …Ensuring the protection of groundwater and surface water is a laudable objective of the municipality and its residents. The Applicant, by offering stringent conditions to be included to ensure this protection, is also clearly concerned with ensuring this protection.

b. …Mr. MacGillivray’s evidence was to take a precautionary approach, as he maintained that the Township’s concerns to protect ground and surface water had not been adequately addressed by the Applicant. The Board agrees that a prudent approach is necessary given the previous difficulties associated with groundwater faced by residents in this area. However, that does not mean the development cannot proceed as proposed. Based on the evidence of the expert Planners, the Board determines that the proposed development does meet the criteria of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and represents good planning.”

c. By including strict conditions to address the issue of groundwater and surface water protection, the Board concludes that the proposal can also respect the public interest.

d. …the Owner or their agents shall submit a detailed hydrogeological report for the proposed development confirming that nitrate levels at the property boundary do not exceed 10 mg/l pursuant to that permitted by MOE Guideline B7.

161As identified in Martone, the precautionary approach does not prevent a development from proceeding.

162BCO argues that MBC Applications rely on too many uncertainties or outcomes that have not been resolved (or even studied) by its own consultants and are left to a future time with unknown mitigation and no proposal to monitor and mitigate destruction to habitat or replace drinking water. The Tribunal disagrees and highlights strategies to be implemented:

• A phased development where Phase 2 is contingent upon positive water quality and quantity testing.

• The Level IV treatment system will reduce nitrate levels by at least 50%, with add-on options to reduce the concentrations further if required.

• The Group Pumping Test exceeded the D-5-5 Guidelines and confirmed that there will be no water quantity issues.

• The SWM facilities are designed to control back-to-back 100-year storms.

• Each lot will have greywater recycling systems to reduce aquifer withdrawal stress by a target level of 25% and certain lots will contain individual cisterns if required.

• The groundwater that flows towards Belfountain Creek will be diluted as it flows a significant distance and through the off-site wetland and forested areas where nitrate attenuation is high.

• An EMP is in place, which requires monitoring for at least 12 years after Phase 1 is constructed and includes contingency actions should any issues arise.

• The conditions of approval for the NEC Permit and DPS which ensures that development cannot proceed until it is demonstrated that the necessary regulatory approvals and permits are secured and additional studies and/or securities are provided.

• The owner will enter into a tri-party subdivision agreement with the Town and Region, and a Development Agreement with the NEC.

163While the Tribunal accepts the NEC approval as correct, it also finds that additional terms and conditions are required, as endorsed by the NEC, Town and MBC. Thus, pursuant to NEPDA s. 25(12.1), the Tribunal confirms the decision of the NEC approving the Development Permit subject to the revised NEC Conditions endorsed by the NEC, Town and MBC.

164The Tribunal approves the DPS in principle, subject to the condition of approval agreed upon between the Town and MBC.

CONCLUSION

165THE HEARING OFFICER CONCLUDES THAT, pursuant to ss. 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Niagara Escarpment Commission decision to approve the Development Permit, with the addition of the agreed terms and conditions set out in Attachment 1, is correct.

INTERIM ORDER

166THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to subsection 51(56) of the Planning Act (“Act”), the appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction and receipt of the pre-requisite matter identified in paragraph [169] below, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision is approved in principle as prepared by Alister Sankey dated June 30, 2022, comprising Part of East Half and West Half of Lot 9, Concession 5, W.H.S. Hamlet of Belfountain, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, set out as Attachment 2, and subject to the Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.

167THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the issuance of its Final Order on the Draft Plan of Subdivision is contingent upon confirmation from the Town Solicitor that the Niagara Escarpment Commission Permit has been issued.

168AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Act, the Town of Caledon shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

169The Member will remain seized for the implementation of this Order and remains available through the Case Coordinator for additional case management should the need arise.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3