Decision Date: July 8, 1997

Panel: Carol Martin

Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – s.2(2), s.3(1), s.3(4)(e), s.3.3, s.4(3), s.7(1), Schedule 1 – s.1, s.2, Schedule 2(1); meaning of “conspicuous place”; posting of a permit and site plan.

Mr. Rogers, a neighbour of the permit holder, appealed the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) to issue a permit for a sewage disposal system on a property located in Roberts Creek, near Sechelt. Mr. Rogers submitted that an insufficient number of test holes were dug at the proposed disposal field location, that percolation tests were not conducted, that the permit was not posted as required and that public health was at risk because soil depth was inadequate and disposal field distance from possible outbreak points was insufficient.

Mr. Rogers did not demonstrate to the Panel that a risk to public health would be created by the installation and use of the approved disposal system. The Panel found that the site plan was not posted as required, but held that this was not critical to the appeal. It further found that the requirement regarding distance from the proposed system to breakout points was met. The Panel agreed with Mr. Rogers however, that the regulatory requirements for test holes and percolation tests were not met, so the EHO could not properly determine whether soil conditions or depth was satisfactory.