Stephen Bedford

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a 4.3-hectare parcel from an existing retirement community for future redevelopment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent application, subject to agreed-upon conditions, had regard to provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and provisional consent was granted.

The applicant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for 42 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the municipal committee of adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a maximum building height of 10.4 metres for 11 proposed single detached dwellings.

The municipality did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plans, and was minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of the City of Thorold's Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application to facilitate a 6-storey, 40-unit apartment building.

The City argued that a rezoning application was required and that a heritage impact assessment had to be completed before the variances could be considered.

The Tribunal rejected the City's arguments, finding that the property was already appropriately zoned for apartment dwellings and that the heritage impact assessment could be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.

Relying on the planning evidence of the applicant's planner and the former City staff planner, the Tribunal found that the four requested variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.