Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – s. 7(2); Environment Management Act – s. 11(14.2); grandfather clause.
This was an appeal of a decision by an Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) to issue a permit authorizing the repair of a failing sewage disposal system, originally installed prior to 1985. The Appellants sought to have the permit rescinded because the site plan was inaccurate, the new disposal field was too close to domestic waterlines, one of which services the subject property and the Appellant Hummel’s property, and the disposal field was too close to a potential breakout point. The Appellant Hummel also argued that the proposed works were not really a repair of an existing system as the original system was “not legal”.
The Panel found that the proposed system was properly considered a repair under section 7(2) of the Regulation even though the original system may not have been built under permit. In this case, the Panel found that the Regulation didn’t require the location of waterlines and setbacks to be shown on the site plan and the Permit Holder was not required to meet the usual setbacks, provided that a health hazard is not created. The Panel found that the repairs provided sufficient safeguards to ensure the public health would be protected. Although the Panel noted that it is up to the water purveyor to deliver safe potable water, the Panel added a condition to the permit requiring the Permit Holder to upgrade the old domestic waterline that serves the two dwellings. The Panel upheld the permit subject to minor amendments. The Panel also considered and rejected a request for costs. The appeal was dismissed.
