Kent Randall

Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) appealed the City's refusal of a Temporary Use By-law application to permit 24 transitional housing sleeping cabins on a property adjacent to an existing heavy industrial facility.

The central issue was whether the cabins should be classified as 'dwellings' or 'noise sensitive institutional purpose buildings' under provincial noise guidelines (NPC-300) for the purpose of determining land use compatibility.

The Tribunal found the cabins constituted dwellings, requiring more stringent noise mitigation.

Because the proposal introduced a sensitive land use immediately adjacent to a Class II industrial facility without adequate mitigation mechanisms, the Tribunal held it was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the City Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The sole remaining issue was whether the development would negatively impact the Garden Hill Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Prior to the re-hearing, the Ministry of Natural Resources adjusted the ANSI boundary, removing the subject property.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the development would have no negative impacts, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The subject lands contained a portion of a Provincially Significant Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI).

The municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the features of the ANSI, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the natural features or ecological functions of the ANSI, as the appellant's expert evidence focused exclusively on the subject lands rather than the ANSI as a whole.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three two-storey stacked townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and the Town of Lindsay Official Plan, representing appropriate residential intensification.

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

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of an amending zoning by-law concerning the definition of an 'improved street' and conditions for issuing building permits on lots without frontage on an improved street.

The parties engaged in mediation and presented a settlement with proposed modifications to the by-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 32-unit townhouse development.

The municipality argued the development did not support intensification targets and lacked legal road access.

The Tribunal found the road access issue was resolved and that the development conformed to the density and intensification targets of the applicable official plans.

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

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a hemp processing facility on a property zoned Specialty Crop.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed agriculture-related use is consistent with provincial and regional policies and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner and the Town's Director of Planning, who was summoned by the appellants, over the Town's retained expert.

The Tribunal concluded that site plan control would adequately address any operational concerns.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a circular driveway in the front yard.

The proposed driveway required variances for front yard landscaping and multiple access points.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, noting the design would preserve an existing city tree and manage stormwater effectively.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion for partial approval of Phase 4 appeals concerning Official Plan Amendments 13 and 16, which implement the Lindsay Secondary Plan.

The parties reached a settlement on the proposed policy and mapping modifications.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represent good planning.

To avoid potential policy conflicts between the new Secondary Plan and the existing Town of Lindsay Official Plan, the Tribunal ordered that its final approval be withheld until the Minister formally repeals the existing plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a high-density mixed-use development on a former industrial site.

The delay was due to pending floodplain modelling by the conservation authority.

Prior to the hearing, the conservation authority confirmed the site could be safely developed, leading the parties to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The appellant appealed a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application intended to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and entered into multiple agreements.

The appellant withdrew its appeal against the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the parties jointly recommended a revised condition of consent.

Relying on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent satisfied all statutory criteria, allowed the consent appeal in part, and authorized the provisional consent subject to the amended condition.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-hectare gravel pit.

The applicant also applied for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, which was referred to the Tribunal due to outstanding objections.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence on land use planning, hydrogeology, agrology, and traffic engineering, which demonstrated that the proposed aggregate extraction operation is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to local official plans, and will not have adverse impacts on groundwater, natural heritage features, or traffic safety.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approved the planning instruments, and directed the Minister to issue the aggregate licence.