Justin Harrow

The appellants appealed the conditions attached to a provisional consent granted by the County of Hastings for a lot addition intended to resolve access and encroachment issues for a neighbouring property.

The appellants contested conditions requiring a detailed plot plan of the neighbouring lands and the dedication of portions of their retained lands to the municipality for road widening and a turnaround.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the consent itself represented good planning, the disputed conditions were not reasonable, necessary, or equitable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, as they would require actions on lands not owned by the appellants and disproportionately burden them with road dedication.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that rezoned a portion of the subject property from Rural Residential to Rural to facilitate the construction of a livestock facility.

The appellant raised concerns regarding odour and potential well water contamination.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County Official Plan, and restores the intended zoning of the property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an outside take-out canteen on her residential property.

The municipality refused the application due to road safety concerns and a lack of off-street parking at a busy intersection.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the intent of the Comprehensive By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Township of Carlow/Mayo that authorized setbacks for existing buildings near Environmental Protection zones and waterbodies.

Prior to the hearing, the Freeman appellants and the Township reached a proposed settlement to repeal the amendment, which the Chadband appellants did not join but whose outcome they supported.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, found that the amendment was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the County Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowed the appeals, and repealed the zoning by-law amendment.