Pierre Chauvin

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of an accessory building on a property designated Agricultural Area and located within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a written hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances for maximum height and gross floor area met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the refusal of the County of Oxford and the Township of Blandford-Blenheim to approve an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment to permit a seasonal special events facility on agricultural lands.

The central issue was whether the facility qualified as an on-farm diversified use under the Provincial Planning Statement and Guideline 851.

The Tribunal found that the facility met the criteria for an on-farm diversified use, as it was located on a farm, secondary to the principal agricultural use, limited in area, and compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, concluding they were consistent with provincial policy and represented good land use planning.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use, master-planned community with approximately 1,800 residential units.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Mixed-Use High Density Residential' designation was appropriate and ordered a minimum requirement of 3,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area.

The Tribunal also approved requested relief for building heights and tower floorplates, finding that detailed urban design, transportation, and parkland dedication matters would be appropriately addressed through the subsequent site plan approval process.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments with modifications.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss appeals against its Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) zoning by-law amendment, arguing the appeals targeted maximum building height and density, which are prohibited grounds under subsections 34(19.5) and (19.6) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while appeals directly challenging maximum height and density are prohibited, the legislation does not create blanket immunity for the entire by-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the appeals seeking mapping changes, finding they effectively targeted maximum building height.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals to proceed to a hearing regarding the built-form performance standards, provided the challenges are limited to aspects that do not directly drive maximum height or density.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a cemetery and accessory uses on lands designated as a prime agricultural area.

Neighbouring landowners appealed the municipal approvals under the Planning Act and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed cemetery is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, as there is an identified need for an Ahmadiyyan cemetery and no reasonable alternative locations exist.

The Tribunal also found that hydrogeological and traffic impacts can be appropriately managed through Site Plan Control.

The Tribunal concluded that the establishment of the cemetery is in the public interest, noting the Ahmadiyyan community's lack of a faith-based cemetery in Ontario.

The Planning Act appeals were allowed in part to implement the applicant's requested modifications to the planning instruments, and the FBCSA appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to permit a 10-storey residential building with 98 units.

The variances sought relief for building height, parking rates, and corner visibility triangles.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposed transit-supportive development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached a compromise settlement to revise the amendments to continue permitting a mixed-use development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.