O. Reg. made under the…

ERO number


Comment ID


Commenting on behalf of


Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses


O. Reg. made under the Environmental Protection Act 153/04

a) It appears the EPA is referencing and using same language as the Building Code so meanings are the same. For example, “community use” reference some Group A major occupancies. We support the initiative of cross referencing the Building Code but warn if the specific Building Code changes in the future, the MOECC staff will need to revise the EPA regulation promptly.

b) Under (5) 4. Institutional use includes a building for indoor gathering of people for religious purposes, under the Building Code this is an Assembly use (Group A Division 2). Suggest revising so both are the same and to avoid industry confusion.
c) Under community use does not include use of land for a road that (a) and (b) is written very poorly and does not accurately describe the exemption requested (dating back to May 2014). The purpose is to create an exemption for a RSC for a new home in a new sub-division on lands where a road, cul-de-sac was required. A common example is where the one phase of construction ends (new cul-de-sac) and the next phase is opened up the cul-de-sac is removed and new homes are built over part of the former road. Suggest revising the proposed exemption wording. Contact myself and we can discuss.

d) Under Exemptions 15 (1) 2. iv. Why is there a limit of no more than four storeys before the change and will have no more than four storeys after the change?

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments.

e) Under Exemptions 15 (1) 2. v. Can you clarify building’s footprint and shell have not be changed? Is the intent of the building footprint means no additions or part demolition? Can shell be clarified? Again we assume the building can be renovated but the exterior walls, floors and ceiling/roof all remain.

f) Lastly, from the last consultation, we recall a RSC exemption for former religious uses converted to residential use. Was this dropped or did we miss?

O. Reg. made under the Environmental Protection Act On-Site and Excess Soil Management

g) During the last consultation, Chief Building Officials and Building Officials expressed many concerns with how the ESMP’s and the issuance of building permits would be interfaced. It appears MOECC clearly received this messaging, and we appreciate the proposal for ESMP’s are not interfaced with the Building Code based on the proposed regulation. Thank you!

h) An observation that the ESMP threshold appears to have increased to 2000 cu.m. (from 1000 cu.m.).