T. J. Cieciura

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 applications for consent to sever and minor variances to permit the construction of two new two-storey dwellings.

Following revisions to the proposal that resolved urban forestry concerns and mitigated neighbour impacts, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and the severance satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the modified variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Condominium, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 30-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable provincial and municipal plans.

The Tribunal approved the draft instruments in principle, withholding final orders until all conditions, including securing vehicular access and addressing heritage and noise matters, are satisfied.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to legalize and maintain a one-storey addition and a new loading space at an industrial property.

A neighbouring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about noise, fumes, and stormwater runoff.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal, which included new landscaping strips, would improve the existing conditions and provide appropriate buffering between the employment and residential zones.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision dismissing nine variances for a new dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the request to a single variance to increase the floor space index to 0.6.

Based on unchallenged affidavit evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and granted the single variance subject to the condition that construction be substantially in accordance with the settlement plans.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's passage of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-046, which sought to regulate cannabis production and processing facilities by restricting them to industrial zones and imposing a 150-metre setback from sensitive land uses.

The appellants argued that the by-law effectively prohibited the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and industrial hemp in prime agricultural areas, contrary to provincial policies.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as it failed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and restricted normal farm practices.

The Tribunal also found that the by-law did not conform to the Growth Plan or the applicable Official Plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the municipality to repeal the by-law.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent applications to sever the rear portions of two deep lots to create two new lots fronting onto a private laneway.

The proposed lots would require access and servicing through a municipal 0.3-metre reserve, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances would create isolated lots that do not respect the existing lotting pattern, contrary to the Official Plan's neighbourhood character policies.

Given the cumulative uncertainties regarding servicing, access, and the lack of jurisdiction to compel the lifting of the municipal reserve, the Tribunal concluded the lands were not suitable for subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.