NPCA Policy Document Housekeeping Amendment No. 2

Most comments against the proposed changes argue without evidence. For as long as the septic tanks to be built are properly constructed, serviced (pumped) and inspected I am for this proposed flexibility.
https://advancedsepticservicesfl.com/are-septic-systems-bad-for-environment/
Sewage treatment plants are the logical alternative and they have far more serious impacts to the environment - have a read - https://environment.probeinternational.org/1995/09/18/ontarios-sewage-treatment-plants-and-their-effect-environment/

I would firstly like to commend the NPCA for preparing a reduction in set backs with regard to Septic systems. I am currently in the process on a residential project. The elaborate systems offered today make private waste management better than most services in Cities. I see a lot of comments, of "more restrictions"... The Blind, believing that a residential Septic systems are the cause of our water problems is ridiculous and "it's the Developers or Corporations being bullies". The REGION is a corporation, Does that make you evil. Does the councilor below consider his work of the devil? Clearly if submitted designs ( by qualified septic designers) can show with DATA and FACTS that the flow rates of liquids passing throughout the mantel, filter bed and dis-tributary field are more than satisfactory, than logically the NPCA should support the reduction in set backs. I would suggest we STOP making policies based on " reactions or feeling based opinions" that cause unnecessary grief and money that does not go to water clean up.. But more governing authorities.

Where is the ecological reasoning behind the reduction to 15 meters? Until you can present one, DO NOT change the buffer from 30 m to 15.

Be the protector of waterfront and the environment that you need to be. That you were created to defend. One size does not fit all.

The issue with the policy is that there most certainly can be a lack of room on a rural parcel for a rigid 30 metre septic system setback once multiple constraints, environmental and otherwise, are taken into account. Such a wide and rigid setback stifles opportunities to maximize environmental protection for rural developments. And such a wide one-size-fits-all setback fails to provide flexibility in assessing the real likelihood of impact relative to the range of sensitivities among different types of wetlands.

I would like to know why the amendment is being made to 15 metres. I disagree with the amendment. I feel that this can only be some sort of pressure from developers. If the mandate of the NPCA is to expand and protect wetlands, why is it being changed from 30 metres to 15? There has been a lot of pressure from development and industry on our wetlands - do not encroach on them any further.

I have already made an earlier comment and would like to add an additional point. I just received this notice today, Oct. 7, 2019. I would ask that you extend your deadline as I am notifying other people that my not have received this notice. Please keep my email on file and notify me of any future proposed changes to your policies.

Thank you, Don Lubberts

I just read your proposed house keeping Amendment #2. As a Councillor for the Town of Ft. Erie for the past 9 years I have some concerns with your proposed changes. Firstly although there is increased pressure from the development community to reduce restrictions your reasoning doesn't make logical sense. Most of the new development is happening in the urban areas of our municipalities. Development that requires a septic tank are for the most part in the rural areas. These areas require a minimum area of land to build on, one acre or so. There is no lack of room for a septic tank on an acre of land.
Secondly with my experience with the OMB and now LPAT I have found that any change to the rules become the norm. In other words once you set the precedence you become bound to that decision. If you allow septic systems to be within 15 meters of a wetland it won't be long before we end up at a LPAT hearing where the applicant wants to put the foundation within 15 meters of the wetland. I have read multiple cases with the OMB and past practice is for the most part always withheld. My experience has also showed that site specific is a misleading conception. I would ask that this change be reconsidered and turned down. Our wetlands are too important. We have lost enough wetlands. Its time that the development community look elsewhere to maximize there profits.
Respectfully, Don Lubberts

I agree with the new setbacks.
Modern septic system are very efficient.
More emphasis should be on making the welland river flow better.

NO!!!! Protect our wetlands and homes of what’s left of our wildlife!! Our roads are covered with road kill just trying to survive.

Our family lives on the corner of Webber and Colbeck Drive and directly across the street from a green space that buffers the Welland River. We watch Red Fox, coyotes, rabbits, geese, and all sorts of wildlife that inhabit this 75 meter wide x 300 meter long stretch of land. Under the current 30 meter set back it cannot be developed. Under the new proposed 15 meter set back it will be developed. So unfortunate that this is even being considered for development when so many species of wildlife make this little stretch of riverbank their home.

It's also worth noting that septic beds can be naturalized - planted with native species - to contribute to wetland buffers and provide wildlife habitat in what might otherwise be manicured area.

It should be recognized that a septic system is an environmental mitigation measure, and not an impact. I agree with the additional flexibility of assessment provided by the reduction from 30 metres to 15 metres. For part (b) of the policy, I think the flexibility afforded replacement septic systems would also appropriately include instances of existing legal use and legally established residential development where a septic system is lacking and for which the addition of a septic system would have clear environmental benefits.

Hello. I would have thought it important to maintain the 30 meter set back of septic. Why propose a reduction when it is critical to keep our water from being polluted. We chose to make a wide buffer of trees shrubs and plants between our existing septic and the creek, but as we have witnessed during many canoe trips in our region, we are an exception. We have also seen manure piles at the top of the creek bank. People will push the boundaries. Please leave it the way it is.

30 meters was a number decided upon to protect our wetlands. The only thing that has changed over the years, are increased development and further degradation of the wetlands. I see no good coming from the proposed changes and feel the 30 meter buffer should not be changed to 15 meters. If anything it should be increased!

Please Do Not make this amendment. 15m is too close to our wetlands. This seems like an amendment to appease some developer, not uphold our natural integrity. The Niagara Region is already highly populated and has enough anthropocentric, and farm pollutant waste. Our wetlands, water, and underground aquifers are overstressed and damaged enough.

I am strongly opposed to changing the wording for he allowed distance from a wetland from 30 m to 15 m. Our wetlands are becoming even more important with the effects of climate change and I ear that this type of change could compromise these important areas. I see no reason to make this change.

Removed by moderator.

We should be increasing not decreasing wetland buffer zones. Corporate interests are not our interests. Save the planet.

I agree with the proposed reduction in setback from 30m to 15m.