Jeffrey Nanson

The applicant appealed the Town of Amherstburg Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a second driveway on a corner lot.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, the Tribunal found that the variance maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part, authorizing the variance subject to conditions limiting the driveway's width and requiring a turn-around.

The Town of Amherstburg issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 109 Park Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners objected, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The sole issue was whether the property had contextual value under s. 3(i) of O. Reg 9/06 by defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Town's expert, finding that the property is part of a relatively intact 19th-century residential streetscape and archetypal to that character.

The Tribunal recommended that the property be designated, subject to revising the designating by-law to reflect only its contextual value.

The applicant, a turkey processing plant, sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 that certain municipal by-laws restricted its normal farm practices.

The Board found that the applicant's activities, including truck movement, outdoor employee activity, and outdoor storage of by-products, constituted normal farm practices.

The Board ordered that the municipality's Property Standards, Yard Maintenance, and Zoning By-laws shall not apply to restrict these practices.

The Board also ordered that the Noise By-law shall not apply, provided the applicant constructs a noise attenuation barrier to mitigate noise impacts on the adjacent residential property.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor licence to serve alcohol at a municipal concession stand in a public park.

Several community members objected, arguing that alcohol consumption in a family park would expose children to inappropriate behaviour and increase crime.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that issuing the licence was against the public interest.

The Tribunal noted the municipality's support, the lack of police objection, and the applicant's proposed security measures.

The application was approved subject to conditions, including a two-drink maximum and the use of red plastic cups.