Nick Wood

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's proposed conditions for site plan approval for a self-storage facility.

The disputed conditions required the gratuitous conveyance of land for an unequal road widening of Prince of Wales Drive and a sanitary sewer easement for an existing sewer.

The Tribunal found that both conditions were authorized under section 41(7) of the Planning Act.

The road widening was described in the Official Plan and justified by the need to expand a rail overpass, while the easement was authorized for the maintenance of an existing sanitary sewage facility on the land.

The Tribunal held that both conditions were reasonable and served a broad community interest in protecting infrastructure corridors.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's deferral of a minor variance application to permit a farm labour residence in the basement of an approved agri-tourism retreat.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised variance request.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and had appropriate regard for provincial interests.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was approved subject to conditions.

Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.

The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.

A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.

The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.

The applicant appealed the City of Brantford's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 318-unit residential development consisting of two new six-storey buildings and an existing building.

The central issue was the proposed reduction in parking requirements and the applicant's refusal to unbundle parking costs from rent.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and that parking costs cannot be regulated through a zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 2-storey agri-tourism facility on an active organic farm.

The proposed development included overnight accommodation for up to 12 guest rooms to educate the public about organic farming.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Agri-tourism Retreat' is a unique concept that meets the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan as an on-farm diversified use.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence regarding land use planning and natural heritage, concluding that the development would not negatively impact agricultural operations or natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle.