Decision Date: January 21, 2003

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Health Act – ss. 8(4), 25; Sewage Disposal Regulation – ss. 1 definition of “high water mark”, 3(1), 3(3)(a), 3.2, 3.3(1), 3.3(2), 6(b), 7(1)(b), Schedule 1 – ss. 1, 3(1), 3(2), Schedule 3 – ss. 2(b), 11, 12, 14(e); Onsite Sewage Disposal Policy, s. 4.4; sewage disposal permit; notice; set-back; soil conditions; curtain/ interceptor drain; package treatment plant.

Paul Scrimger, Sandra Scrimger and Greg Carmichael, and Rick Todd filed separate appeals against the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) to issue a permit for construction of a sewage disposal system for a waterfront property on Prospect Lake.

In determining whether the proposed disposal system complies with the standards in the Regulation and will protect public health, the Board considered sub-issues respecting setback from a high water mark, setback to potential downslope breakout points, treatment of effluent, required soil conditions, the adequacy of the site investigation, and potential health and environmental risks of an interceptor drain. The Board found that the system complied with the requirement in the Regulation for a 100-foot set-back between the absorption field and the high water mark of the lake. The Board also found that the absorption field would be approximately 50 feet from any potential downslope breakout points, as recommended by policy, and that, in any event, this distance could be reduced given the high level of effluent treatment provided by the proposed system. The Board found that the soil conditions on the property, combined with the addition of a sand mound in the absorption field, were sufficient to protect public health, and that the site investigation complied with section 3(3) of the Regulation. Concerns surrounding the adequacy of the interceptor drain were dismissed because the purpose of the drain is to protect the system from becoming saturated with run-off from the road, and the drain will not divert effluent or waste into the lake.

Furthermore, the Board found that although there was a brief delay in posting notice, this minor deficiency did not prejudice the interests of the Appellants and the permit holder promptly contacted the immediate neighbours.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.