Karl Konze

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.

The appellants appealed the County's Official Plan Amendment 2 (OPA 2) and the Township's failure to make a decision on related official plan and zoning by-law amendments, which would permit an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (ERRC) in a significant woodland.

The appellants argued the facility would have negative impacts on the natural heritage system and did not qualify for exemptions under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the proposed facility would not cause negative impacts to the significant woodlands or wildlife habitat, and that the required off-site afforestation and reforestation provided appropriate compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals against OPA 2 and approved the related amendments in part, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.