|
|
|
OMB hears that septics won’t add bacteria to the lake An OMB hearing held on June 21, concerning the severance of a Boiler Beach lot went in favour of the township, following “expert testimony” saying that hazard land was included in building lot size and septic systems don’t add bacteria to lake water. The lot in question is located on the Northeast corner of Boiler Beach Road, adjacent to some mailboxes, directly across from Boiler Beach. The case stems from an application approved by council to sever a property along Boiler Beach Road in December, 2006. A severance request brought forward on behalf of Mike, Steve and Myrna Palleschi and Lorie Chenier and was approved by council. Not all councillors however, were in agreement. It was a tie vote, with Mayor Mitch Twolan casting the deciding vote allowing the severance to go ahead. Jim and Stephanie Coughlin, who own a residence beside the property said that among other things, they were against the idea of large houses being built on small lots. They also believe the decision to allow the severance will set a precedence to allow similar lots to be severed and allow more development along the lakeshore on small lots. Additional impacts from septic systems were also a concern. Jim Coughlin represented himself, while both the Township of Huron-Kinloss and the Palleschis had attorneys. Their attorneys first called Junior Planner for Bruce County, Heather James to the stand. They stated that James went to school for a number of years to learn the job and that she had been employed as a junior planner for the county since January 2006. They asked that because of that, she should be considered an “expert witness.” The board agreed to allow it. James first said that the lot “wasn’t lakefront,” as there was a road in between the lot and the lake, causing some confusion. She then went on to describe 40-50-year-old lots down the road that were smaller, claiming this lot would be “comparable.” In a nutshell, James stated that the severance was within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and that the PPS superceded any bylaws passed by the township. This blew some of Coughlin’s arguments out the window, as part of his argument was that he was in possession of a township bylaw, which prohibits building on undersized lots. Coughlin also argued that much of the lot was hazard land and that the actual building lot size was much smaller than stated by the planner. There was also confusion in the morning as to whether the part of the lot deemed hazard was included in the actual building lot size. No one seemed to have a clear answer. Finally in the afternoon, James said that the hazard portions of lots are indeed included when determining whether a lot was large enough to build on, regardless of its proximity to the lake or the type of hazard. When asked under cross-examination by Coughlin how old the “smaller lots” were that she was comparing it too, she said that she did not know their ages. He asked if she had ever looked at what would be left if the hazard land was not included. James replied, “No.” The most shocking testimony came from a hydrologist, hired to check the property to see if it was suitable for development on a septic system. Hydrologist Geoff Rether, who is experienced in inspecting soil and ground water conditions to determine if septics can be used was declared an “expert witness.” He said that in Sept 2006, he took soil and ground water samples. He said the area was mostly sand, with the exception of the base of the bluff, which has “organic matter.” He recommended using a raised bed, “which is standard procedure in the area because of elevated water tables. With a 1,000 sq foot footprint (from the proposed dwelling) I don’t see a problem.” Rether said that in that type of sandy soil, drainage would be around 5-7 minutes per centimeter. He said however that it exceeded the recommended ground water impact. “The guidelines say not to exceed 10 milligrams per litre. Ground water impact will exceed the 10 mgs. To accommodate for this, a sewage treatment system will have to be used to lower the level to accommodate for that. A septic system is technically feasible on this property.” Coughlin asked about impact to the lake from the septic, which Rether replied, “The guidelines do not include the lake.” “Would this just be a standard system with a raised bed,” asked Coughlin. Rether answered “Yes.” Rether said, “The risk of adverse impact is practically zero. I have never seen bacteria in the lake from a sewage system that far from the lake.” (About 100-150-feet) “You will see nitrates and phosphorus, but not bacteria,” he said. “Bacteria lives 50-days. It would take a year travel time for it to get to the lake.” When asked again about the high bacteria counts and algae along the lakeshore the township has been experiencing, he said sepics were not the cause. “Most of the bacteria is from agriculture, tile draining. Ten minutes after a rainfall, there is manure in the waterways.” When Jim Coughlin took the stand, he mentioned sludge in the water and poor water quality. The OMB Chair said, “Did we not just hear testimony and expert evidence that there was absolutely no risk of bacteria from septics entering the lake?” Coughlin replied, “That is the first time I have ever heard an expert say anything like that. We have a septic re-inspection program going on because of the adverse effects caused by septics and studies looking for other possible causes. After hearing expert testimony that hazard land was considered in the overall lot size when considering a building permit and that septic systems don’t harm the lake, Couglin then said, “I don’t have a case.” That being said, the township’s lawyer said, “We can save Mr. Coughlin the cross-examination by him dropping the appeal.” Coughlin said that he would. The OMB chair said, “The main concern is water quality. We have heard expert testimony from the hydrologist that there is absolutely no danger to the water from septic systems. That is the main point.” He then approved the application. |
|