Jay McGuffin

The Beamsville Bench Winery Association (BBWA) brought a motion seeking Party status in appeals concerning the Town of Lincoln's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The developers opposed the motion, arguing BBWA lacked a direct interest and its participation would cause unnecessary duplication and delay.

The Tribunal granted Party status, finding that BBWA had a direct interest due to potential impacts on nearby wineries and specialty crops, had participated in the prior municipal process, and would provide necessary and distinct evidence regarding agritourism and agricultural impacts.

The Tribunal declined to strike BBWA's proposed issues, leaving their merits to be determined at the hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal and the County of Essex's failure to make a decision regarding applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate a land swap.

The proposal sought to exchange the land use designations of two 4.4-hectare parcels, moving future residential development away from natural features and into an agricultural area.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed land swap constitutes a 'development' and creates a 'new settlement area' under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The applicant failed to provide the required environmental, servicing, and agricultural impact assessments to demonstrate consistency with provincial policies.

The applicant appealed the City of Sarnia's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey, 56-unit affordable housing development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment, and the City appealed the County of Oxford's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, all relating to a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that reduced the total unit count, lowered building heights near existing homes, and relocated higher-density buildings to improve compatibility.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised planning instruments.

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

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, amending the zoning by-law and approving the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of its Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit residential development in Ingersoll.

The parties reached a settlement on most issues, leaving only the appropriate parking rate for two proposed apartment buildings in dispute.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's transportation expert evidence, finding that the proposed parking rate of 1.19 spaces per unit was optimal given the site's walkability and bikeability.

The appeals were allowed in part and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications to permit two 12-storey apartment buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to facilitate a 50-unit townhouse development.

The variances sought to increase the maximum density and reduce the minimum exterior side yard setback for one unit.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the municipality reached a settlement.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the variances.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence supporting the settlement, finding that the modified variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal in part.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for Site Plan Approval and the removal of a Holding Provision to permit the construction of a large-scale outdoor storage facility for biosolid fertilizer pellets.

The Township opposed the applications, citing concerns regarding stormwater run-off, fire hazards, odour, and dust.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the appellant's engineered design and extensive modelling adequately addressed the Township's speculative concerns.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to the parties entering into a site plan agreement, after which the holding provision would be lifted.

The applicants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments were intended to facilitate the development of two apartment buildings with up to 193 units and a municipal stormwater management pond.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments, as modified by the settlement, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified amendments.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of a three-storey triplex on a waterfront property in Grand Bend.

The municipality and a local community association opposed the development, arguing the building's scale and massing were excessively large and incompatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the unique characteristics of the large, dually-zoned lot made the proposed medium-density development an appropriate transition between nearby high-density and low-density uses, and that the design was compatible with the eclectic neighbourhood.