Harry Froussios

The appellant appealed the City of London's proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment which sought to modify the boundary of the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) to include a portion of the appellant's lands.

The appellant argued the boundary expansion was premature and not supported by ecological evidence, as the lands were dominated by invasive species and lacked significant natural features.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding that the City's proposed ESA boundary was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the London Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the appellant's proposed ESA boundary line.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a property in Prince Edward County.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment, which permits uses such as a supermarket, gas bar, and retail commercial establishments, represents good planning and is consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal and neglect to make a decision regarding an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Alteration Application to permit a six-storey apartment building and commemorative parkette.

Following the execution of Minutes of Settlement by all parties and the withdrawal of the heritage appeal, the Tribunal allowed the planning appeals in part, amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township of King's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 on a site-specific basis regarding a property at 675 Kettleby Road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement proposing a site-specific exception zone to permit additional agricultural and agricultural-related uses.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications consistent with provincial and local policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, consent, and site plan applications to permit a 22-unit, 3-storey apartment building and the severance of an existing heritage house.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and in principle, finding the site ideally located for residential intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners over the Town's consulting planner, concluding the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County and Town Official Plans, subject to minor revisions to the lot line to eliminate an irregular notch.

The applicants sought an order compelling the respondents to reduce the height of a fence to comply with a municipal by-law, after the municipality declined to enforce it.

The court considered whether it could intervene in a municipality's discretionary decision not to enforce a by-law.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the court found that it could only intervene if the municipality acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

As no such evidence was adduced, and the municipality provided articulable reasons for its decision, the application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed a building permit issued by the Chief Building Officer (CBO) for an accessory building on a lakeside residential property.

The property was a non-complying lot because it did not border a street, making the determination of lot lines and setbacks under the zoning by-law ambiguous.

The CBO reasonably interpreted the by-law to conclude that all lot lines were side lot lines, and issued the permit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appeals judge erred by applying a correctness standard of review and improperly considering land use planning principles from the Official Plan.

The CBO's decision was restored as it was reasonable and entitled to deference.