James Griffin

The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever a 0.8-hectare parcel for residential purposes.

The key issue was whether the proposed reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback from an adjacent livestock facility was appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the limited site-specific circumstances for reducing the MDS setback under Guideline 43.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decisions of the County to grant provisional consent and approve a zoning by-law amendment to create two new rural residential lots from an existing parcel.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the development represented a modest form of intensification that would contribute to the housing supply without adversely impacting surrounding agricultural uses.