David Ashbourne

The claimant sought compensation for the partial expropriation of its property by the Town of Tecumseh for road and service upgrades.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property, both before and after expropriation, was the continuation of its existing commercial use, rejecting the claimant's proposed mixed-use redevelopment scenario due to a lack of evidence on financial feasibility.

The Tribunal awarded $332,515 for the fee simple taking based on a value of $73 per square foot, $44,435 for the expropriated easement, and $15,000 for injurious affection related to snow removal costs on the remaining lands.

Claims for disturbance damages were dismissed as premature.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey residential apartment.

A neighbouring property owner was granted party status and opposed the development, citing concerns about density, scale, and neighbourhood compatibility.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant, finding that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the municipality to amend the zoning by-law with site-specific requirements limiting the maximum height to 14 metres and maximum density to 70 units per gross hectare.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's Shoreline Preservation By-law, which introduced a 30-metre setback and natural vegetative buffer requirement around waterbodies to conform with the updated County Official Plan.

The appellant argued the by-law was overly prescriptive and unreasonably restricted land use.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County Official Plan, which explicitly requires a 30-metre setback and vegetative buffer to protect water quality and ecological functions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to add a definition of 'vegetative buffer' and a provision permitting minor maintenance and pruning, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, concluding the by-law represented good planning and appropriately balanced public environmental interests with private property rights.