Dr. Paul Villard

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The sole remaining issue was whether the development would negatively impact the Garden Hill Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Prior to the re-hearing, the Ministry of Natural Resources adjusted the ANSI boundary, removing the subject property.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the development would have no negative impacts, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The subject lands contained a portion of a Provincially Significant Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI).

The municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the features of the ANSI, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the natural features or ecological functions of the ANSI, as the appellant's expert evidence focused exclusively on the subject lands rather than the ANSI as a whole.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.