Nicholas Loeb

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use in a rural area.

At the fifth Case Management Conference, the parties requested another conference or an adjournment sine die to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting the matter had languished too long, and scheduled a one-day merit hearing to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference to resolve disputes regarding the Procedural Order and Issues List for an appeal of a refused Official Plan Amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to provide updated technical studies and a draft OPA prior to the witness statement deadline to ensure fairness.

The Tribunal also ruled that the Issues List would include an issue regarding the weight to be given to the County's newly adopted Official Plan, noting that the Clergy Principle is a discretionary procedural policy.

The Tribunal further refined issues relating to the Provincial Planning Statement and the absence of a specific development proposal.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a municipal council's refusal to amend an Official Plan, the parties sought direction on the scope of the Issues List.

The appellant sought to alter a Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard boundary to facilitate a future severance, arguing the hearing should only address the boundary adjustment.

The municipality argued that because the appellant effectively sought a new Residential designation for the lands, policies relating to residential uses and settlement areas were relevant.

The Tribunal agreed with the municipality, finding that to replace the current designation with a Residential one, the appropriateness of that new designation must be evaluated, making the related policies relevant for the Issues List.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use in a rural area.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested additional time for their planners to discuss the matter following the applicants' retention of new counsel and a new planner.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 1, 2025, to monitor progress and potentially finalize a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Municipality of Central Elgin's refusal to amend its Official Plan.

The applicant sought to alter 'Natural Heritage' and 'Natural Hazard' designations to facilitate a future consent application for lot severance.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Elgin and participant status to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and a local resident.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for February 2026, and the parties were directed to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for a 6-storey, 90-unit mixed-use apartment building and 28 townhouses.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning by promoting residential intensification on an underutilized site with full municipal services.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 177-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one additional individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence on October 22, 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 177-unit high-density residential development.

The threshold issue was whether the lands should be re-designated and re-zoned for residential uses given an existing oversupply of residential lands in the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the site-specific redesignation of the fully serviced, shovel-ready infill property was appropriate and an efficient use of under-utilized land, despite the oversupply.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to move forward to a full hearing.

The appellants appealed the County of Elgin's refusal of a site-specific Official Plan Amendment intended to permit an existing electrical services business to operate as an on-farm diversified use on their agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the Official Plan Amendment as modified by the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 177-unit high-density residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Central Elgin and participant status to 15 individuals.

A 2-day hearing was scheduled to determine threshold issues regarding the appropriateness of redesignating and rezoning the subject lands for residential uses given the existing supply of residential lands and the planned function of other future development areas.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 13-unit condominium townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, which were subsequently submitted and approved.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for September 2023.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the parking and maintenance of two commercial motor vehicles on their residential property as a home occupation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding area, which included a major arterial road with significant truck traffic.

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' planning evidence that the use maintained the residential character of the area and that any noise, odour, or safety impacts would be minimal and could be mitigated.

The appellant appealed the decision of the County of Elgin Land Division Committee granting a consent application to sever a new residential lot with reduced frontage.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, that the proposed severance conforms to the applicable Official Plans and meets the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was upheld subject to conditions.

The applicant and the county brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever land for a townhouse development.

The appellant, a neighbouring resident, argued that the site included an improperly conveyed public road allowance and raised concerns about development in a floodplain.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that disputes over registered land ownership are outside its jurisdiction and must be resolved in the courts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that floodplain and environmental issues, while legitimate planning concerns, are appropriately addressed through the related Zoning By-law Amendment process rather than the consent to sever, which deals only with land ownership and boundaries.