Shannon VanDalen

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an existing basement secondary suite and an addition to their dwelling.

The application was subsequently narrowed to only recognize the existing secondary suite.

The Tribunal found that the revised application, supported by expert planning evidence and consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conforms to the County's Official Plan and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law accordingly.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seasonal resort recreational development on lands designated as prime agricultural.

Following initial evidence, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the number of seasonal cottages from 173 to 125, restricted occupancy to April through October, and increased public access to recreational amenities.

The Tribunal approved the revised planning instruments, finding that the seasonal recreational use would not adversely impact nearby agricultural resources, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey residential apartment building.

The municipality raised concerns regarding public access to the waterfront and the availability of water and wastewater servicing.

The Tribunal found that requiring public access to the river was not feasible due to security, topography, and accessibility issues, and that the proposed alternative community benefits were appropriate.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development subject to a Holding (H) provision pending confirmation of sufficient water and wastewater capacity.