• Linda Waugh on behalf of the Price Road Property Owners v. Environmental Health Officer

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Walco Enterprises Ltd., Permit Holder


    Decision Date: June 30, 1998

    Panel: Don Cummings

    Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation-ss. 3(1), 7(1); Schedule 2, Appendix 1; Schedule 3-ss. 5, 11, 14, Appendix 1; “Vertical Separation, a Review of Available Scientific Literature and a Listing from 15 Other States.”

    This was an appeal against the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) to issue a Sewage Disposal Permit to Walco Enterprises for construction of a package treatment plant system for a 19-lot mobile home subdivision near Errington, B.C.

    The Appellant, on behalf of 20 property owners who lived near the proposed subdivision, argued that the sewage disposal system would have a negative impact on fish and local wells, that the Permit Holder and EHO may have been misled about the accuracy of soil testing at the site and that the estimated daily sewage flow shown in the permit was questionable and should fall under the more restrictive provisions of the Waste Management Act.

    The Board found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support her claim that the proposed system would have a downstream impact on fish or would affect nearby wells. The Board noted that the proposed system satisfied the requirements of section 14(e) and 14(d) of Schedule 3 of the Sewage Disposal Regulation, as it was greater than 30 metres from the high water mark and beyond 30.5 metres from the nearest source of domestic water. Further, the Board found that there was no evidence to support the Appellant’s suggestion that the test pits at the site were “salted” with imported soil. The Board also found that the proposed sewage flows from the system would be less than 5,000 gallons a day, which meant that the system was exempt from the Waste Management Act.

    The Appellant also raised the issues of whether the developer deceived local residents by telling them he was only going to build a home on the site and whether the developer allowed sediment from construction to enter a nearby swamp. The Board found that both issues were beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. The appeal was dismissed.