Practice Highlights

Jeff Wilker focuses his practice on land use law and routinely develops novel approaches to resolve complex legal problems. The provision of top shelf legal guidance to his clients is a hallmark of his practice. Jeff acts on cutting edge matters and prides himself on his ability to “think outside of the box.”

Jeff’s practice involves all aspects of municipal and planning law, including land use litigation, expropriation, environmental and constitutional matters. He appears before Municipal Councils, at provincial tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board, and in the Courts, on behalf of municipalities, public agencies, corporations and private individuals. He is the Town/Township solicitor for a number of municipalities.

Jeff has been recognized as a leading practitioner in Real Estate (Municipal Law) by Best Lawyers in Canada® 2017.

Practice Areas:

  • Land Use Litigation
  • Planning & Municipal
  • Expropriation
  • Environmental
  • Constitutional

Education

  • Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Victoria College, University of Toronto (1985)
  • Bachelor of Laws, Osgoode Hall Law School (1988)
  • Master of Laws (Constitutional Law), Osgoode Hall Law School (2000)

Professional Accreditations and Affiliations

  • 2017 Listed in Best Lawyers Canada
  • 2016 Martindale-Hubbell Ranked Lawyer
  • Canadian Bar Association – Municipal and Environmental Law Sections
  • Advocates’ Society
  • Ontario Expropriation Association
  • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association
  • Past President of Phi Delta Phi International Legal Fraternity
  • Officer and Director of Phi Delta Phi (Ontario Society)
  • Past Board member of the High Park Curling and Lawn Tennis Club

Additional Information

*Jeffrey Wilker Law Professional Corporation

Share This

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Share on Google+ Share By Email
  • Significant Ontario Municipal Board Decisions

    • Cytec Canada Inc. City of Niagara Falls. PL111325, October 24, 2014.
      Acted on behalf of Cytec Canada to successfully resolve its concerns regarding environmental and natural heritage system mapping in the City’s Official Plan Amendment.
    • Preston Sand and Gravel Company Limited v. CRAND.  (2014) 79 O.M.B.R. 347.
      Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to successfully obtain approval of its proposal to zone and licence an above water table gravel pit.  Issues included the failure of the residents’ group to comply with the Procedural Order; the residents’ group allegation of bias against the OMB member; and, issues regarding the appropriate conduct of the hearing.  The residents’ group has sought permission to appeal the Decision to the Courts.
    • Amaranth (Township) and Allto Investments Holdings. (2014) 80 O.M.B.R. 240.  Acted on behalf of the Township to successfully secure a costs award against the appellant owing to the failure of the appellant to comply with the directives and orders of the OMB.  The appellant’s failures caused the Township to incur substantial costs to ensure that the appellant appropriately restored and rehabilitated the peat fields where the appellant had illegally extracted peat.
    • Grand Valley (Town) and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.  PL130625,  January 24, 2014.Acted on behalf of the Town through Board assisted mediation and subsequent Board issued Decision.  The Board Decision/Order approved OPA No. 4 which expanded the urban area of the Village and also redesignated and reallocated various employment and residential lands within the Village relying on the Town’s land supply analysis which demonstrated conformity with the Growth Plan.
    • Miller v. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2013) 76 O.M.B.R. 465.
      Acted on behalf of the landowner in the Town of Fort Erie to successfully obtain a ruling that the Official Plan Amendments to amend the urban area and redesignate lands for residential development were transitioned under the Growth Plan Transition Regulation 311/06.  The Divisional Court subsequently denied the Province’s motion for leave to appeal the Board Decision resulting in the OMB Decision being upheld.
    • Preston Sand and Gravel Company Limited and Woolwich (Township). PL110809, February 1, 2013.
      Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to successfully obtain approval of a gravel pit opposed by the surrounding residents.  The matter proceeded through Board assisted mediation and subsequent Board issued Decision which approved the Zoning By-law.  Issues included noise, visual impact, hydrogeology, traffic, recycling and a holding provision within the Zoning By-law regarding underwater extraction.
    • Lundy v. East Garafraxa (Township). PL120517, January 25, 2013.
      Acted on behalf of the Township to successfully oppose a severance for a dwelling proposed to be surplus to a farm.  Issues included Minimum Distance Separation Distance (MDS) and the interpretation of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
    • East Garafraxa (Township) and A-Line Developments Inc. PL111173, September 27, 2012.
      Acted on behalf of the Township through Ontario Municipal Board assisted mediation and subsequent OMB issued Decision which approved the zoning and draft plan of subdivision for estate residential lots.  The approvals included dealing with the satisfaction of a best efforts clause, stormwater design, a well monitoring program, and parkland dedication.
    • Cytec Canada Inc. and Terma Holdings Inc. PL090224, August 31, 2012.
      Acted on behalf of Cytec Canada regarding its issues with the upstream development proposed by Terma Holdings and their potential impact on Cytec’s ongoing operations.
    • Halton Hills (Town) and Eden Oak (Main Street) Inc. MM110043,  March 15, 2012.
      Acted on behalf of the Town with respect to parkland valuation issues.  The Ontario Municipal Board Decision interprets the provisions of the Planning Act and the Building Code Act to reconcile the competing timelines within the statutes and determines the appropriate valuation date.
    • Halton Hills (Town) re Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2010-0050. PL100931, February 1, 2011.
      Acted on behalf of the Town to scope the appeals of the appellants so as to bring into full force and effect the Town’s new Zoning By-law and subsequently dealt with the appeals of the various appellants on corridor protection and drive through restaurant matters.
    • Preston Sand and Gravel Company Limited v. Puslinch (Township). PL090122, March 10, 2010.
      Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to obtain approval of its proposal to zone and licence a pit including extraction below the water table.  Issues included environmental, hydrogeology, noise, dust, traffic, social impact analyses re the haul route, and the establishment of a private haul route, and official plan conformity.
    • Amaranth (Township) and Edelbrock Bros. Limited. PL050096, March 16, 2010.
      Acted on behalf of the Township to finalize the appeals on its 2004 Plan resulting in the confirmation of the boundaries of the Hamlet of Laurel.  This confirmation recognized development lands consisting of approximately 100 lots on the eastern boundary of the Hamlet.  Issues included the transition provisions of the Growth Plan; the agricultural capability of the lands and Minimum Separation Distances from agricultural operations on surrounding lands.
    • Amaranth (Township) and Allto Investments Holdings. PL050096, February 25, 2010.
      Acted on behalf of the Township to deal with existing and proposed peat extraction operations.  The Ontario Municipal Board approved modifications to the Township’s Official Plan resulting in the incorporation of peat extraction – industrial polices into the Plan.
    • Amaranth (Township) and Hamount Investments Limited/Valleygrove Investments Incorporated. PL030316, August 5, 2009.
      Acted on behalf of the Township.  The Ontario Municipal Board approved the zoning and conditions of draft plan approval for the estate residential subdivisions with a yield of 92 lots.  Issues included the appropriate servicing of the subdivision with the resulting servicing being by a Township public water system and private septic systems with tertiary treatment; the establishment of this development in the vicinity of Town of Orangeville wells; the transition provisions of the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan; and conditions of draft approval to address the continued maintenance of a pioneer cemetery and buffers to the existing butternut trees on the development lands.
    • The Murray Group Limited v. Centre Wellington (Township) and PERA. PL050956, May 12, 2008.
      Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to obtain approval of the proposal to zone and license two gravel pits. Issues included environmental, hydrogeology, noise, dust, traffic, ecological assessment, fish habitat, proximity to a hamlet and official plan conformity.
    • Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. v. Amaranth (Township). (2007) 58 O.M.B.R. 236.
      Acted on behalf of the Township on a wind turbine farm proposal, resulting in a settlement of the Township issues, secured in a number of development agreements. Primary issues at the hearing involved transformer noise and the operation of aerodromes in the vicinity of the proposed turbines, including constitutional issues regarding aeronautics being a federal undertaking.
    • Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Devins et al. (2007) 55 O.M.B.R. 474.
      Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton with respect to decision on the development serviced by private septic tertiary treatment systems and boundary limits for hamlet of Glen Williams. The proposal was to service the development with the “Waterloo Biofilter”, a nitrate removal system. Review of Servicing guidelines and municipalities being more stringent in their guidelines than the Ministry of Environment.
    • Paletta International Corporation v. Regional Municipality of Halton. (2006) 54 O.M.B.R. 91.
      Acted on behalf of the Region of Halton to bring a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act precluded the Board proceeding with the hearing, and seeking a determination of the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the applicability of the “Clergy principle.” The Divisional Court subsequently set aside the Board’s decision on jurisdictional grounds.
    • Limerick (Township) v. Trident Members Inc. (2005) 52 O.M.B.R. 77.
      Acted on behalf of the developer seeking to have approval of an additional 52 lots to be added to an 88 lot subdivision of which 31 lots were within 300 metres of the shoreline and were proposed to be serviced by septic systems including phosphorus tertiary treatment. The Ontario Municipal Board deferred consideration for a further period of observation and monitoring. Remaining additional lots were draft approved in separate hearings.
    • Limerick (Township) v. Hastings (County). (2004) 48 O.M.B.R. 299.
      Successfully acted on behalf of a developer seeking a review of a prior settlement decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, as new scientific research and evidence warranted a rehearing. This is a leading decision on the Ontario Municipal Board’s section 43 review process. Decision also deals with lapsing condition and vacant land condominium approval.
    • Paletta v. Region of Halton and City of Burlington. PL020384, July 20, 2004.
      Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton to oppose the conversion of a parcel of land consisting of approximately 329 acres from employment lands to residential lands. Decision included an analysis of market issues including land supply and economic analysis.
    • Mono (Town) Official Plan Amendment No. 23. (2000) 41 O.M.B.R. 190.
      Motion for dismissal based on the lack of filing of the requisite appeal fee on the Official Plan Amendment by the appellant.
    • Hoddinott v. Halton Hills (Town). (1999) 39 O.M.B.R. 325.
      Review of the criteria for a vacant land condominium and the determination by the Ontario Municipal Board that it did not have jurisdiction to approve same as the Condominium Act refinements had not yet come into effect.
    • Babic v. Halton Hills (Town) Committee of Adjustment. (1997) 35 O.M.B.R. 35.
      Successfully acted on behalf of the Town of Halton Hills. The Ontario Municipal Board confirmed that it neither had the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief or the jurisdiction to permit the extension of the non conforming use in these circumstances.
    • Muhos Development Corp. v. Mason (1993) 28 O.M.B.R. 495
      Co-counsel. Secured an award of costs in favour of client owing to change by opposition of position at hearing.
  • Cases of Note: Significant Niagara Escarpment Hearing ERT Decisions

    • Leckebusch v. Niagara Escarpment Commission. Case Nos.: 11-002/11-00, July 30, 2013.Acted on behalf of the Region of Halton and Town of Halton Hills respecting building permit, site plan, noise and operational issues concerning an equestrian facility known as Halton Place.

     

  • Cases of Note: Significant Joint Board Decisions

    • Ontario (Joint Board under Consolidated Hearings Act) v. Ontario Hydro. (1993) 11 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 135, 61 O.A.C. 345, 15 M.P.L.R. (2d) 196, 13 O.R. (3d) 177, 50 L.C.R. 161, Divisional Court.Co-counsel. Leading decision on the jurisdictional authority of the Joint Board to determine its own procedure.
  • Cases of Note: Significant Court Decisions

    • Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Miller. [2014] O.J. No. 5431, October 22, 2014
      Successfully acted on behalf of the land owner where the Divisional Court denied the Province’s motion for leave to appeal the Decision/Order of the Ontario Municipal Board on the interpretation of the Growth Plan Transition Regulation 311/06.  The Court determined that the OMB’s field specific expertise together with its familiarity with its home statute and constellation of accompanying statutes and regulations lead the Court to defer to the Board resulting in the Divisional Court denial of leave.
    • Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp., cited as Halton (Region) v. Ontario (Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing). (2007) 31 M.P.L.R. (4th) 252, 55 O.M.B.R. 443, Divisional Court, Motion for Leave to Appeal.Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton on the motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Divisional Court granted leave as there was reason to doubt correctness of Board’s decision because it failed to properly address the basic jurisdictional issue raised before it.
    • Ron Coles Holdings Ltd. v. Mono (Town). 2004 CarswellOnt 1813; Ontario Superior Court of Justice.Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that each party would bear their own costs arising out of litigation from a front ending agreement for a municipal water tower and associated water system.
    • Niagara Falls Bridge Commission v. Niagara-on-the-Lake. July 12, 2001, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).Order obtained from the Court determining that its federal undertaking was exempt from the Planning and Building Code Act regimes of Ontario.
    • 913719 Ontario Ltd. v. North York (City). (1998) 47 M.P.L.R. (2d) 274, 114 O.A.C. 353, 37 O.M.B.R. 142, 41 O.R. (3d) 298, Divisional Court.Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that it would deal with its proceeding prior to the Ontario Municipal Board proceeding. Case is a leading decision on the determination of the primacy of forum between the Court and the Ontario Municipal Board matters on challenges to the validity of zoning by-laws on constitutional grounds.
    • Richmond Hill (Town) v. York Region Condominium Corporation. October 31, 1996; Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).Co-counsel representing the Town in proceeding to enforce orders under the Building Code Act against a “sinking” condominium building.
    • 913719 Ontario Ltd. v. Niagara Falls (City).. (1995) 29 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1, 84 O.A.C. 149, Ontario Court of Appeal.Successfully defended major adult video chain on charges of operating as an adult entertainment by-law contrary to the City of Niagara Falls adult entertainment by-law and zoning by-law resulting in the Ontario Court of Appeal determining that the store was a retail store under the City’s zoning by-law, declaring the adult entertainment parlour by-law invalid, in part, and quashing the prior convictions by the lower court.
  • McGibbon hotel reconstruction opposition voice support for settlement

    Independent Free Press | by Kathryn Boyle, Jeff Wilker comments | February 23, 2017

    Town staff have come up with what they describe as a ‘win-win’ for Silvercreek Commercial Builders and concerned residents when it comes to the McGibbon reconstruction. During a special council meeting on Feb. 22, Halton Hills solicitor Jeff Wilker presented to council in a public forum the legalities of the settlement between the town and … Continued
  • Glen Williams residents likely to be disappointed at upcoming OMB development hearing

    Independent Free Press | by Graeme Grisque, Jeff Wilker mentioned | February 16, 2017

    Residents in Glen Williams remain unhappy with a recent decision by council to allow an unpopular residential development in the Halton Hills hamlet to move forward. The 31-home development by Eden Oak Creditview Heights Inc., currently under review by Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), met stiff resistance at a Jan. 24 special meeting of council at … Continued
  • Best Lawyers in Canada 2017

    August 10, 2016

    Published annually by Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in Canada is one of the country’s most highly regarded legal directories. Inclusion is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey and a thorough authentication process. We are proud to announce that the following 14 lawyers from Thomson, Rogers were selected for inclusion in 11th Edition of The Best … Continued
  • Best Lawyers in Canada 2016

    August 24, 2015

    Published annually by Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in Canada is one of the country’s most highly regarded legal directories. Inclusion is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey and a thorough authentication process. We are proud to announce that the following 14 lawyers from Thomson, Rogers were selected for inclusion in the 10th Edition of The … Continued
  • “OMB paves way for No Frills store in Acton”

    Independent Free Press | by Lisa Tallyn, Jeff Wilker comments | January 9, 2014

    There could soon be another grocery store opening in Acton after a development company received Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approval Wednesday for amendments to the Town’s Official Plan (OP) and zoning bylaw amendments. The OP amendment approves re-designating land at 388 Queen St. E. from Medium Density to Corridor Commercial Area and a zoning bylaw … Continued
  • Outlets waging legal war

    Independent Free Press | by Cynthia Gamble, Jeff Wilker comments | February 1, 2012

    Not everyone is thrilled with the plan for an outlet mall at Trafalgar Road and Hwy. 401. At Monday’s special council meeting, the Town released a letter from a law firm representing RioCan Acquisitions Inc., a company working with Tanger Factory Outlet Centres Inc. to build a 350,000 sq. ft. outlet of Canadian and U.S. … Continued
  • Halton Place hearing adjourned after news of three-party deal

    Independent Free Press | by Lisa Tallyn, Jeff Wilker comments | October 15, 2011

    A planned lengthy hearing in Milton, focusing on Halton Place’s appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s (NEC) refusal to grant a development permit, was adjourned on its first day (yesterday)— to be rescheduled likely early next year. Seven days had been set aside for the hearing dealing with an appeal by Timur Leckebusch, owner of … Continued
  • OMB approves OP, zoning for Orica explosives

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller | July 15, 2010

    In a 10-page decision released June 30 but not yet posted on its website, the Ontario Municipal Board has ruled that Orica Canada Inc. may continue its explosives storage operations at a long established site near Luther Marsh. The OMB’s approval of both an East Luther Grand Valley Official Plan amendment and permanent zoning are … Continued
  • ELGV settles with Orica as OMB hearing continues.

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller, Jeff Wilker comments | June 17, 2010

    The Township of East Luther Grand Valley has agreed to minutes of settlement with Orica Canada Inc., which might be expected to mean that a portion of the 160-acre farm owned by Klaus Friesecke near Luther Marsh can now be rezoned for Orica’s explosive storage facility. But Ontario Municipal Board Vice-Chairman Donald Granger has yet … Continued
  • Safety upgrades part of Orica, ELGV deal

    The Orangeville Banner | by Richard Vivian| June 14, 2010

    Several safety upgrades are coming to Orica Canada’s explosives facility near Grand Valley as part of a settlement reached ahead of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing that began last week. As a result of the deal, which includes many more concessions and a financial commitment to the township, East Luther Grand Valley (ELGV) no … Continued
  • Master’s Creek residents should have known about sidewalks: lawyer

    Orangeville Citizen | Dan Pelton, Jeff Wilker comments | February 18, 2010

    Legal counsel for the Town of Mono has submitted an opinion that residents of the Master’s Creek subdivision ought to have known that sidewalks were part of the overall plan for the development. Residents of the subdivision, situated north of Cardinal Woods and west of Highway 10, are objecting to plans to install sidewalks on … Continued
  • Orica wins right to remain in Dufferin

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller | July 16, 2009

    A Superior Court judge has ruled that the Orica Canada explosives facility may continue to operate near Luther Marsh, at least until a zoning issue has been resolved at the Ontario Municipal Board. The federally licensed facility has been functioning on temporary zoning since 2007. Last month, following massive public opposition to the operation, East … Continued
  • Court grants injunction to Orica

    Orangeville Banner | by Richard Vivian, Jeff Wiler comments | June 15, 2009

    A Grand Valley-area explosives operation can stay open — at least for a couple more weeks. A Superior Court judge agreed to allow Orica Canada Inc. to carry on business as usual until an injunction hearing can be heard June 22 to 26. Without the court’s approval, Orica would have been in violation of its … Continued
  • Orica appeals, seeks interim zoning order

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller | June 11. 2009

    Orica Canada Inc. has launched an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal of East Luther Grand Valley’s decision not to renew temporary zoning for its explosives storage near Luther Marsh, and is seeking an injunction to allow continued use of the site pending the outcome of the appeal. It filed its OMB petition under Section 89 … Continued
  • Neighbours Object to Gravel Pits Near Elora

    Guelph Mercury | March 7, 2008

  • Turbine OMB to resume

    Orangeville Banner | February 25, 2008

  • Transformer Noise Dominates OMB Hearing

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller | February 23, 2008

    The concluding two days of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing into the Amaranth portion of the 132-megawatt Melancthon II wind project began Wednesday with confirmation that all issues with respect to the turbines themselves had been resolved, but that the noise issues at the transformer substation had yet to be resolved. Following unchallenged presentations by … Continued
  • Gravel Pit Hearing on Hold for Two Weeks

    Fergus-Elora News Express | February 13, 2008

  • Grand Valley wind hearing goes to mediation

    Orangeville Citizen | by Wes Keller, Jeff Wilker comments | January 17, 2008

    In a potentially complicated and protracted hearing into the proposed East Luther Grand Valley wind farms, the parties have agreed to Ontario Municipal Boardvicechair Jan de P. Seaborn’s “suggestion” of a Board sponsored mediation in an effort to get things sorted out. The hearing of a George Pullen appeal opened at the Amaranth council chambers Tuesday morning. It … Continued
  • OMB to reopen hearing on Amaranth turbines

    Orangeville Banner | November 23, 2007

    • The New Municipal Act – Municipal Licensing

      Insight Seminar | Toronto | 2002

    • Expropriation Process Overview

      Municipalities often require the acquisition of private property in order to construct public works. Examples of these acquisitions include road widenings and sites for municipal wells and landfills. At times it is necessary for the municipality to acquire the land without the consent of the property owner through an expropriation. When there is such an … Continued
    • Pesticides, Hogs, and Nutrient Management

      Legal Alert | October 2007

      Ontario Court of Appeal Rules on Compatibility of By-laws and Legislation In its recent decision in Peacock v. Norfolk (County), [2006] 81 O.R. (3d), the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the circumstances in which the “impossibility of dual compliance” test will determine whether or not a by-law conflicts with a Federal or Provincial statute. Earlier … Continued
    • Thomson, Rogers Prize in Municipal Law

      AMCTO Conference | Niagara Falls | 2007

    • Courts Defer to Municipalities – An analysis of the Spraytech and Croplife municipal pesticide by-law decisions

      Legal Alert, Volume 24, Number 11,

    • OMB Revisits the “Clergy Principle”

      Legal Alert, Volume 23, Number 3

    • Municipalities Not Contractually Bound by Zoning – A review of down zoning jurisprudence

      Legal Alert, Volume 22, Number 5

    • The Municipal Building Department – The In House Guarantor of Building

      Butterworths Municipal Enforcement Strategies Seminar

    • Municipal Enforcement Strategies

      Butterworths Conference | Toronto | 2003

    • Municipal Licensing Powers: How Can We Make A Successful Transition?

      AMCTO Spring Seminars

    • Municipal Licensing

      AMCTO Seminar | Toronto | | 2002

    • The Ontario Municipal Board – Abolition of Not?

      Legal Alert, Volume 21, Number 8

    • Federal Undertakings Are Constitutionally Exempt From Land Use Regulation

      Land Use Reporter

    • The Lawful Installation of Medians on Highways – Case Note, TDL Group Ltd. v. Niagara (Regional Municipality), 55 O.R. (3d) 1

      Land Use Reporter | Fall 2001

    • Tendering … According to the Supreme Court of Canada – Case Note, Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd, 2 S.C.R. 943

      Land Use Reporter

    • SCAN – Canada’s Largest Fibre Optic Community Network

      Land Use Reporter

    • Zoning and Licensing: An American-Canadian Comparison

      First Amendment Lawyers Association | Summer 2000

    • Sex, Land Use and the Law: A Comparative Analysis of the effect of the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the application of municipal land use and licensing controls to adult land uses in the United States and Canada

      Collected Papers, First Amendment Lawyers Association

    • Candour, Frankness and Impartiality – The Rule of Notice in Municipal Act Legislation

      Land Use Reporter

    • Septic Approvals — Confusion

      Land Use Reporter