Alan Wiebe

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to address preliminary issues in an appeal concerning a site plan application for a proposed cemetery.

The primary issue was the admissibility of two new witness statements filed by the Town, which the applicant argued were improper and raised new issues.

The Tribunal ruled that the witness statements were relevant to the site plan appeal and permissible.

The Tribunal also declined to stay the proceedings pending a related judicial review application, finding no exceptional circumstances, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of a temporary use Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the placement of four trailers on a church property to be used as affordable residential rental units for three years.

The appellant raised concerns regarding land use compatibility, the nature of the trailers as dwelling units, and the impact on future secondary planning.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the temporary use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and provides needed affordable housing.

The appeal was allowed in part only to amend the enactment and expiry dates of the by-law to align with the Tribunal's decision date, and was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed the passing of Official Plan Amendment No. 27 by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Following a request for review of an earlier settlement decision under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, the Tribunal rescinded the original order.

The parties subsequently reached a new settlement modifying policies related to the Western Gateway lands.

The Tribunal found the proposed modifications, which guide future development and intensification while addressing an existing hydro corridor, represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modified Official Plan Amendment.

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment by the municipality.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the municipality reached a settlement regarding proposed policy modifications.

A non-appellant party opposed the settlement but was found to have no independent status to continue the appeal under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence and concluded that the proposed policy modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modifications.