We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Here's another bizarre rule about Records of Site Condition
for contaminated sites where land-uses change:
Under s. 14 of O.Reg. 153/04, certain changes in land-use
require a mandatory Record of Site Condition in order to get a
building permit. These include:
1. A change from an industrial use to an agricultural or other
use or to an institutional use.
2. A change from an industrial use to more than one type of
property use, including any or all of the following:
i. Agricultural or other use.
ii. Institutional use.
iii. Parkland use.
iv. Residential use.
3. If the property is used for an industrial use as well as any
other type or types of property use, a change in the use of part or
all of the property used for industrial use to any or all of the
following types of property uses:
i. Agricultural or other use.
ii. Institutional use.
iii. Parkland use.
iv. Residential use.
So, if a purely industrial lot is entirely converted to
residential or park use, it does not require a RSC. But if
99% of that same site is converted to residential use, with 1%
converted to, say, a park or a retail store, the entire site
requires an RSC. Or, if 99% of the property used to be industrial,
but 1% of it was used for anything else, none of the 99%
can be converted to residential or parkland without an RSC.
Am I missing something? Yes, the rest of the rule is NOT in the
regulation. Instead, it's in section 168.3.1 of the
Environmental Protection Act....
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A large, historical Australian public health study from the Sydney Medical School concludes that health complaints about wind turbines are heavily influenced by contagious nocebo effects.
The City of Kawartha Lakes has appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal from a Ministry of the Environment Order, which imposed cleanup liability on the City for contamination it did not cause.
The $18 billion award given in Ecuador against Chevron for environmental damage won’t be enforced by seizing Chevron Canada, according to Justice David Brown.
On April 12, 2013, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) issued a public notice regarding proposed amendments to the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (Project List).
We have written several times about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in AbitibiBowater v. Newfoundland, in which insolvency law trumped environmental orders.
