Marion-Frances Cabral

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an additional residential unit within an existing accessory building on agricultural lands.

The municipality argued the proposal was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' planning evidence, finding the applications had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the PPS 2024, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 45-unit residential infill development for seniors, arguing it interfered with their adjacent development plans by creating a permanent turning circle.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the site plan to ensure access without interfering with the appellant's lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised development and draft amended zoning by-law had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.