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….