Eldon Darbyson

The appellants appealed a condition imposed by the Town of Fort Erie's Committee of Adjustment on a provisional consent for a severance.

The condition required the submission and approval of a Restoration Plan for a significant woodland on the property.

The appellants argued the condition was unnecessary and disproportionate, relying on a 2018 Environmental Impact Study and a 5-metre setback.

The Town maintained the condition was supported by provincial and local planning policies to protect and restore natural heritage features.

The Tribunal preferred the Town's evidence, finding the 2018 study outdated and the condition reasonable, relevant, and necessary to ensure the long-term health of the woodland.

The appeal was dismissed and the condition upheld.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 102 residential units.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policy and good planning.

The appeals were allowed, the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act regarding a site plan for a townhouse condominium development in Port Rowan.

The parties reached a full settlement and presented a revised Site Plan Agreement to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the official plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal approved the site plan on consent.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a storage facility on underutilized land.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal approve the revised amendment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The applicant 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 160-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the applicable Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the instruments but withheld its final order pending confirmation that the municipality has adopted and budgeted for a technical solution to address a lack of municipal water servicing capacity.