Robert Stovel

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a legal non-conforming use application to permit a biosolid storage facility in existing wastewater lagoons on a property in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed use was neither an agriculture-related use nor a permitted non-agricultural use under the Provincial Policy Statement, relying on the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant could not rely on legal non-conforming use because the previous owner's use of the lagoons for its own wastewater treatment had ceased in 2017.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and consent applications to create two new residential lots.

The applicant proposed to consolidate two existing rural residential lots with an adjacent agricultural operation and create two new lots elsewhere on the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed new lots were located within an Airport Influence Area with a Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour above 35.

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan strictly prohibit new residential development in areas with an NEF contour above 30 and 35, respectively, to protect the long-term operations of the airport.

The applicant appealed the Township of Norwich's refusal to amend its Zoning By-law to increase the permitted nutrient units on his 28-acre agricultural property from 170 to 233.3, which would facilitate the construction of a new veal barn.

The application was supported by the County planner and had received approval from OMAFRA for the Nutrient Management Strategy, with no objections from other agencies.

The Township had refused the application based on an alleged promise by the applicant not to construct further buildings, and raised concerns about overdevelopment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence to substantiate the Township's concerns and concluding that the proposed expansion represented good land use planning consistent with provincial and county policies.

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.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The applicant sheep farmer sought a determination that a municipal fill by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically his plan to import over 50,000 cubic metres of fill to level ravines for sheep pasture.

The Board found that the proposed large-scale fill operation was not a necessary or ancillary part of the agricultural operation, as the land improvement would be minimal.

Furthermore, the applicant lacked a demonstrable plan, and the proposal posed risks of water contamination, drainage issues, and erosion.

The application was dismissed.