Christopher Manning

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula passed a zoning by-law amendment to add a definition of a 'Commercial Tour Boat Operation' and include it as a permitted use in all C1 zones.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee appealed, arguing the use was incompatible with the existing residential community along Big Tub Road.

Bruce Anchor also appealed regarding parking provisions, which were settled prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Citizens Committee's appeal, finding that the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest, as commercial tour boat operations have historically operated from the subject properties and provide important tourism and employment opportunities.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At the third case management conference, the appellant requested that a merit hearing be scheduled for the zoning appeal, as the related Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) application was delayed due to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry adding three First Nations to the duty to consult list.

The Township and an added party opposed, arguing that the zoning and ARA matters should be consolidated to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed that consolidation was appropriate and that it was premature to proceed with the zoning hearing while the ARA application remained pending.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until the ARA license is issued or denied.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered whether to schedule a merit hearing or await the referral of a related licensing application under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates, finding it appropriate to schedule a third CMC to allow time for the related matter to be referred and consolidated, thereby ensuring an efficient and comprehensive hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an aggregate pit on prime agricultural land.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement endorsing the application.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning and air quality, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the Zoning By-law to permit the extraction operation subject to a holding symbol and rehabilitation requirements.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision refusing two of four requested minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances for front yard setback, interior side yard setbacks, and driveway width met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions regarding tree preservation and compensation.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate pit.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Waterloo and participant status to a local resident and a conservation group.

The Tribunal also scheduled a five-day hearing and issued a procedural order on consent of the parties.