David Stephenson

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that clear cutting 16 to 35 acres of woodland on their property to establish additional farmland was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the county's forest conservation by-laws.

The Board found that while the applicants were farmers and the practice was connected to an agricultural operation, clear cutting was not a normal farm practice on this specific site.

The lands were zoned for natural environment protection, contained provincially significant wetlands, and were subject to conservation authority regulations.

The environmental concerns and potential for catastrophic soil erosion outweighed the agricultural interests.