Steve Edwards

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment that added new restrictions to its property after a mapping error had inadvertently rezoned it from Rural to Open Space and Environmental Protection.

The parties reached a settlement to restore the Rural zoning for most of the property while maintaining Environmental Protection zoning and a holding provision for wetland areas.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial and municipal policies and allowed the appeal, directing the municipality to amend the zoning by-law accordingly.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use (agri-tourism and retail) on the applicant's property.

The central issue was whether the property constituted a Prime Agricultural Area, which is a prerequisite for the proposed use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officers found that the property was not mapped as a Prime Agricultural Area by the Province, and a site-specific agrology study could not override provincial mapping and implementation procedures.

The Hearing Officers recommended that the development permit be refused, and the Minister subsequently refused the application.