Decision Date: November 25, 1996

Panel: Carol Martin

Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – ss. 3; 3.2; 3.3; 7(1); Schedule 2 – s. 12(b); Health Act – s. 5; EAB jurisdiction; property line; setback to septic tank; setback to stream; curing of defect

This is an appeal by Ms. Gibbens from a decision of the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) issuing a permit for an alternate on-site sewage disposal system to Mr. King. Ms. Gibbens owns a lot adjacent to that of the permit holder. She appealed the issuance of the permit on the grounds that the system did not meet the requirements of the legislation, drainage conditions on the permit holder’s property could cause contaminated water to run on to her property, the permit application process was flawed and the public information process concerning the permit was also flawed. Mr. Gibbens also asked the Board to consider a number of other issues relating to fish habitat, violations of municipal bylaws and the general environmental conditions of the permit holder’s property.

The Board held that the proposed alternate system met all required setbacks and had adequate safeguards to protect the public health. The Board found that there was insufficient evidence to support Ms. Gibbens’ claim that the installation of the septic tank would affect the flow of water onto her property. It further found that the processing of the application for the permit was not flawed and any technical defects in this regard were corrected on the appeal. The Board was provided with no evidence that the public notice requirements had not been met. The Board declined to address the remaining grounds of appeal raised by Ms. Gibbens as they were outside its jurisdiction which was limited to considering whether the subject property could safely sustain an on-site sewage disposal system in accordance with the Health Act and the Regulation. On the evidence presented, the Board concluded that the sewage disposal system complied with the requirements of the Act and the Regulation and the EHO did not err in granting the permit. The appeal was dismissed.