4 total
Tribunal schedules 14-day hearing for appeals of official plan and zoning by-law amendments.
The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the municipality, which would permit a 337-unit model trailer park on a 38.6-hectare parcel of land.
At the second Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that approximately 15 days were required for the hearing of the merits.
The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing and directed the parties to finalize and submit the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for final approval.
Appeals for consent and ZBA dismissed as proposed reduced setback from livestock facility contravened MDS guidelines.
The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever a 0.8-hectare parcel for residential purposes.
The key issue was whether the proposed reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback from an adjacent livestock facility was appropriate.
The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the limited site-specific circumstances for reducing the MDS setback under Guideline 43.
The appeals were dismissed.
Parties directed to submit a hearing plan ahead of the scheduled hearing for a quarry application.
This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.
The court dismissed an application for judicial review challenging a municipality's decision to replace a heritage bridge.
The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.
The application also alleged bad faith.
The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.
