Ruchika Angrish

The appellant appealed the County's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a bulk water delivery business on agricultural lands.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to only a reduction in the roadway setback to 21 metres, abandoning other requested provisions.

The Tribunal applied the Clergy Principle to assess the application under the 2012 Official Plan rather than the newly enacted 2023 Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined it lacked jurisdiction to make a stand-alone finding of fact on whether the business constituted an Agriculture-Related Use.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the scoped amendment for the reduced setback.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to facilitate the development of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the municipality's planning evidence that the proposed lot sizes and densities would result in overdevelopment, lack functional amenity space, and fail to complement the existing neighbourhood fabric.

The Tribunal found the proposal did not conform with the low-density policies of the Garden City Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone agricultural lands to a holding provision for suburban residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment, subject to a holding provision requiring a draft plan of subdivision and technical studies, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to make a decision on consent applications to create two new rural residential lots and reduce the Minimum Distance Separation setback from an adjacent horse barn.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the County's Official Plan, and in keeping with the Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowing the appeals in part to amend the zoning by-law and grant provisional consent subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the County of Brant's refusal of a minor variance application for an already-constructed detached garage.

The variances sought reductions to the rear and interior side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal heard unchallenged expert planning evidence that the variances, subject to conditions addressing drainage and grading, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the variances subject to conditions.