4 total
Appeal of zoning by-law amendment dismissed without hearing as Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to mandate affordable housing.
The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient affordable housing units and placed a time limit on their provision.
The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.
The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate the affordability of housing units or to unilaterally amend a voluntary section 37 density bonusing agreement between the municipality and the developer.
As the inclusionary zoning provisions did not apply to this application, the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could grant the requested relief.
Consent for agricultural lot boundary adjustment granted as it constitutes farm consolidation without creating new lots.
The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever 10.9 hectares of agricultural land and merge it with an adjacent agricultural property to facilitate a more efficient farming operation.
The Town opposed the application, arguing it constituted lot creation and would leave the retained parcel undersized under the 40-hectare minimum in the Official Plans.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal was a minor lot boundary adjustment for farm consolidation that did not create a new lot, and that the retained parcel would remain agriculturally viable.
The court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining a large-scale fill operation for flagrant non-compliance with a municipal by-law.
The Corporation of the Township of North Dumfries brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Geil Style Enterprises Inc. and Jason Geil from continuing a large-scale fill importation business without a permit, in contravention of municipal bylaws.
The plaintiffs argued for a 'strong prima facie case' test for the injunction, but the court applied the 'serious question to be tried' standard, noting that municipalities enforcing bylaws are not required to demonstrate irreparable harm in the same way as private plaintiffs.
The court found the Township met the test, that the non-compliance was flagrant, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Township.
The interlocutory injunction was granted, effective March 18, 2022.
Judicial review of municipal parking pad refusal dismissed; decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Community Council decision denying them a front yard parking pad permit.
The permit was refused because the proposed pad was on the same side of the street as authorized permit parking and was too close to a protected tree.
The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness and that their application was grandparented by a 31-year-old abandoned application.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Community Council's decision was reasonable and that the applicants were afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness given the context.
