Diana Keay

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a hobby farm on an undersized lot and to revise the definition of a hobby farm to be based on nutrient units rather than a strict animal count.

The Township argued the proposal amounted to a commercial farming operation unsuitable for the constrained rural lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal remains small-scale, complies with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies encouraging rural agricultural uses and local food systems.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the municipality following a successful appeal of the municipality's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant argued the municipality's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious because it failed to lead evidence supporting its refusal, filed its planner's witness statement late, and introduced a new issue not on the issues list.

Furthermore, the municipality sought to recover its own legal costs from the applicant pursuant to a Cost Acknowledgement Agreement.

The Tribunal found the municipality's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting its disregard for the procedural order and failure to justify the council's decision.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,500.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 32-unit townhouse development.

The municipality argued the development did not support intensification targets and lacked legal road access.

The Tribunal found the road access issue was resolved and that the development conformed to the density and intensification targets of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and approving the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to revised conditions.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications to permit the severance of a rural property into three residential lots.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots could be adequately serviced by private water cisterns, given the lack of municipal water and inadequate groundwater for wells.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding that cisterns are a viable and common water source in the area and that the proposed intensification is compatible with the surrounding rural character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted travel and tent trailers on Rural, Shoreline Residential, and Limited Surface Residential properties with a reduced minimum lot area of 1 acre.

The appellants argued the amendment lacked proper environmental impact studies and did not conform to the Official Plan or Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's planning evidence, finding that the amendment did not create new lots or intensify land use, and that appropriate restrictions were in place to prevent negative impacts on water quality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.