Brent Spagnol

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan regarding short-term rental (STR) policies.

The parties reached a settlement to replace the STR policies and mapping.

The Tribunal found the revised policies represented good planning and approved them.

However, the Tribunal denied the parties' request to withhold the Final Order until a site-specific zoning by-law amendment for certain appellants was processed, finding that delaying a Township-wide policy for a private agreement was not in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By-law No. 2020-046, which regulated cannabis production and processing facilities.

The parties reached a settlement to modify the by-law for a specific site.

Based on uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the site-specific amendment consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law was modified to permit the facility subject to specific setbacks and a holding provision requiring site plan approval.

The Township of Springwater appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a 42.2-hectare agricultural parcel from a property, retaining a 6.9-hectare parcel with an existing dwelling and farm market operation.

The Tribunal found that the severance, which facilitates farm consolidation for a neighbouring farmer while allowing the existing agri-food business to continue, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans.

The Tribunal preferred the agrological evidence supporting the enhancement of the agri-food network over the Township's strict application of minimum lot area policies.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of granting the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a request for consent to sever a corner lot to create an additional lot fronting onto Stokes Drive.

The Tribunal heard from three land use planners.

The Tribunal found that the creation of one additional lot within an existing plan of subdivision in a designated settlement area can be determined through the satisfaction of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.