Michael Benner

The appellants appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the applicants to develop three small cabins for short-term accommodation on their farm property.

The appellants argued the proposal was not a valid On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU) and did not comply with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were engaged in a genuine farming operation and that the proposed agri-tourism use met the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The Tribunal also determined that MDS I setbacks were not required because the municipality's zoning by-law did not specifically mandate them for this type of use.

The appeal was allowed in part only to make technical refinements to the zoning by-law, but otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a small-scale rural commercial shop for metal works on the applicant's property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding species at risk, minimum distance separation (MDS) from his chicken coop, and aggregate resources.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal was an on-farm diversified use consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal found the appellant's chicken coop was built strategically to thwart development rather than for bona fide agricultural purposes, and thus MDS formulae did not apply from that structure.

The appeal was dismissed.