Erroll Treslan

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

The moving parties sought party status in an appeal regarding a Draft Plan of Condominium, arguing they had a 50% ownership interest in the subject property and that their involvement was necessary to address servicing agreements.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the moving parties' concerns related to private contractual and ownership disputes rather than land use planning merits.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that private agreements are outside its jurisdiction and the moving parties failed to articulate specific planning concerns.

The Tribunal also consolidated the zoning and draft plan appeals and scheduled a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The appeals relate to the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Condominium.

A motion for party status and an adjournment was brought by non-appellants.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the motion because a finalized Issues List had not yet been submitted, which is required to determine if the non-appellants can shelter under existing issues as mandated by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The parties were directed to submit a revised Issues List.

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by The Blue Meadows Inc. against the Town of The Blue Mountains and Grey County for failing to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to three others.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The County of Grey appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent for a lot boundary adjustment without a requested road-widening condition.

The applicant sought to convey an existing driveway to an abutting parcel.

The County requested a 5.182-metre road widening along Alfred Street West, consistent with its Official Plan policies for future growth and infrastructure expansion.

The Tribunal adopted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the road widening was required and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, and provisional consent was granted subject to the road widening condition.

The appellant appealed the conditions of draft plan of subdivision and condominium approvals for a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaging in settlement discussions and a Tribunal-facilitated mediation assessment to resolve remaining technical issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider the status of the settlement discussions and potentially convert it to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a small-scale rural commercial shop for metal works on the applicant's property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding species at risk, minimum distance separation (MDS) from his chicken coop, and aggregate resources.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal was an on-farm diversified use consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal found the appellant's chicken coop was built strategically to thwart development rather than for bona fide agricultural purposes, and thus MDS formulae did not apply from that structure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a 3.6-hectare rural lot from a 29-hectare parcel.

The municipality argued that the Official Plan permitted a maximum of four lots based on the original crown survey, which had already been reached, and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan allowed for pro-rating up to permit five lots, and that evidence showed the legacy aggregate site had been rehabilitated.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, subsequently reopening the matter to attach appropriate conditions regarding entrance permits, parkland dedication, and letters of comfort for private services, while rejecting the municipality's request to require a zoning by-law amendment.

The applicants appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a 3.6-hectare rural lot from a 29-hectare parcel.

The municipality argued that the maximum lot density of four lots, based on the original crown survey, had already been reached and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan permitted pro-rating up to allow five lots, that the aggregate resources had been previously depleted and rehabilitated, and that the application was consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment application to permit the re-severance of six lots that had inadvertently merged in title.

The parties reached a settlement after addressing the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority's concerns regarding natural hazards and heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Official Plan to permit the severance subject to conditions.

The applicant corporation sought a determination that a municipal forest management by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically the clear-cutting of trees to permit farming on vacant land.

The applicant had previously cleared a large portion of young ash trees without a permit, resulting in a stop-work order and charges.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to call expert evidence or prove on a balance of probabilities that clear-cutting in these circumstances constituted a normal farm practice, relying instead on a prior motion decision.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the application.