Decision Date: June 8, 1998

Panel: Toby Vigod

Keywords: package treatment plant; Sewage Disposal Regulation – s 3(3)(a), 7, Schedule 1; s. 21 of Schedule 3.

This was an application to dismiss the appeal filed by Carolyn Klassen against the decision of the EHO to issue a permit to Ms. Klassen’s neighbour, Ms. Wensley, for an on-site sewage disposal system.

This was Ms. Klassen’s second appeal of a sewage disposal permit for the site. In the first appeal, Appeal No. 97-HEA-27, the Board allowed Ms. Klassen’s appeal and rescinded the first permit issued, due, in part, to deficiencies in the procedure used to ascertain the average percolation rate of the absorption field and the lack of drainage information.

New percolation tests were conducted and a new permit was issued. Ms. Klassen appealed this permit on the grounds that the percolation tests were not performed in accordance with the Regulation and a drainage plan had not been provided in accordance with a previous decision of the Board.

In an attempt to resolve the percolation issues, new percolation tests were carried out in the presence of all parties and a drainage plan was provided. The EHO then asked for the appeal to be dismissed. Ms. Klassen argued that four of the eight holes tested were incomplete, although she agreed that four were properly tested, and that the testing was done “under ideal conditions”. She argued, therefore, that the appeal should proceed.

The Board found that Ms. Klassen’s grounds of appeal had been addressed in accordance with the Regulation and the Board’s previous decision. The Board found that the matter should not proceed further at significant expense to the public and the parties when the Appellant’s grounds of appeal had been addressed. The application to dismiss was therefore granted and the appeal was dismissed.