A Newfoundland and Labrador planning adjudicator confirmed the Town of St. Lawrence’s refusal of a permit for a 20-by-30-foot shed above a neighbour’s water and sewer lines. Adjudicator Christopher Forbes issued the July 25, 2026 decision in Immacula Loder v. Town of St. Lawrence, Appeal No. 15-006-094-023, finding that the town had discretion to refuse the application and had exercised it properly.
The ruling turned on regulation 11 of the town’s Development Regulations, which permitted consideration of utility access and other material factors. It did not determine whether a legally enforceable easement existed over Loder’s property.
Application and objections
Loder applied on June 2, 2025, to build the shed at the rear of her property. Public Works’ review identified water and sewer lines serving a neighbouring property beneath the proposed location. The town suggested an agreement between the neighbours before approval. When they could not reach one, council refused the application on Sept. 2. The refusal was communicated by a Sept. 15 letter, the decision confirmed in the adjudicator’s order. The appeal hearing took place on June 24, 2026.
Loder acknowledged that the neighbouring property’s pipes crossed her land but said the town could not produce documentation confirming an easement or encroachment. She described significant expenses dealing with the problem and said she had offered to reroute the pipes along the edge of her property. She objected that a draft agreement would leave her and future owners responsible for the pipes indefinitely, including a warranty she could not give.
Her grounds also challenged the treatment of alternative routing to the main street. She said the neighbour had declined that option because of cost, while the town had indicated that new lines could be rerouted but that approach would not work here. She disputed the relevance of regulations 11 and 22(2), cited in the refusal, and argued that Marystown allowed building above lines serving adjacent properties.
The town relied on regulation 11’s broad, but not unlimited, discretion to consider other residents’ access to water and sewer lines. It argued that another municipality’s approach did not govern this application. It also said the draft agreement was offered to help the neighbours, not to dictate the terms they had to accept.
Compliance did not remove the town’s discretion
Forbes found that regulation 11 applied to all permit applications, including those that met other development requirements. It required consideration of the area’s appearance, surrounding amenity, availability of utilities, public safety and convenience, and other matters the town considered material. Following that assessment, the town could conditionally approve or refuse an application. The effects of the proposed shed on a neighbour’s water and sewer lines fell within that power.
That discretion was not immune from review. Forbes referred to section 44(2) of the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000 and the deference required by Paradise (Town Council) v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Eastern Regional Appeal Board), 2010 NLTD 116. The test was not whether he agreed with council. The cited decision identified five circumstances permitting intervention:
- Clear abuse of statutory authority or disregard of a statutory condition governing its exercise.
- Evidence of misconduct by the municipal authority.
- Failure to act in good faith.
- Evidence of improper motive or illegality.
- Failure to understand the request made in the application.
Forbes found no evidence of abuse of statutory authority, disregard of a statutory condition or failure to understand Loder’s request. The remaining concerns did not establish a basis for intervention either.
Recusal and the proposed agreement
Loder questioned the neighbour’s involvement because he was the town’s mayor. Forbes found that the mayor had declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from the decision-making. He found no evidence of misconduct, bad faith, improper motive or illegality in the town’s actions, and rejected the suggestion that providing a draft agreement showed implicit bias against Loder.
The town had tried to assist the neighbours in reaching an agreement, Forbes found. Each was free to use or reject the draft, obtain legal advice or propose changes. Although a signed agreement was the town’s prerequisite to approval, the draft’s particular terms were not imposed on either party.
Forbes expressed sympathy for Loder’s circumstances but concluded that, on the evidence and applicable law, he had no authority to override this refusal. The operative order confirmed the permit decision; it did not order relocation of the pipes, award compensation or impose a removal order or fine.
The decision’s notice permits an appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on a question of law or jurisdiction. It says an appeal must be filed no later than 10 days after the appellant receives the decision, rather than 10 days after its date.
