Gord Nielsen

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and nine consent to sever applications to create 10 residential lots.

The applicant and the township reached a settlement, but neighboring property owners opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to provincial and local planning policies regarding natural heritage and lot creation outside settlement areas.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the development appropriately protected ecological systems, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and granting provisional consents subject to conditions.

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula passed a zoning by-law amendment to add a definition of a 'Commercial Tour Boat Operation' and include it as a permitted use in all C1 zones.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee appealed, arguing the use was incompatible with the existing residential community along Big Tub Road.

Bruce Anchor also appealed regarding parking provisions, which were settled prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Citizens Committee's appeal, finding that the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest, as commercial tour boat operations have historically operated from the subject properties and provide important tourism and employment opportunities.

The South Bracebridge Environmental Protection Group appealed the Town of Bracebridge's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a private school complex.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, provided that the minimum buffer for wetlands and watercourses is increased from 15m to 30m.

The Tribunal also required the inclusion of a holding symbol that can only be lifted after site-specific environmental impact statements, including comprehensive amphibian and bat surveys, demonstrate no negative impacts on significant wildlife habitat.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement these amendments.

The applicants sought consent to sever a shoreline property on Lake Bernard to create a new lot and a retained lot.

The Central Almaguin Planning Board granted provisional consent, which was appealed by adjacent property owners.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal considered expert ecological and planning evidence demonstrating that the severance would not negatively impact the lake's water quality or sensitive Lake Trout habitat, particularly because the lots would be connected to municipal services, significantly reducing phosphorus loads.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that dismissed his appeal concerning a proposed development.

The OMB had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the moving party failed to present apparent land use planning grounds.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in law by equating 'land use planning grounds' with 'evidence from a land use planner' and by finding he had not tendered a land use planning opinion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's assessment of the evidence was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The Court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision, as the evidence provided by the moving party was insufficient to demonstrate legitimate land use planning concerns.