Real Estate Law - OERT

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a lot and construct a new dwelling for his extended family.

The subject property is designated Escarpment Protection Area under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance exceeded permitted lot density provisions and did not conform to the lot creation policies of the Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy applied for development permits to sever three lots and establish building footprints.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approved the permits.

Several property owners appealed the decision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a minor modification to a property boundary to address concerns about a 'pinch point' on the Bruce Trail.

The Hearing Officer found the modification to be minor and confirmed the Commission's decision with the revised site plan.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit to demolish accessory structures and construct a single dwelling and detached garage.

The refusal was based on non-compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae due to an adjacent chicken farm.

The Hearing Officers found that while the application did not meet the strict MDS setback, a minor variance was available and appropriate in the specific circumstances, given the lack of alternative locations, the required environmental setback, and proposed odour mitigation measures.

The Minister approved the development permit subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a new lot containing an existing two-storey single dwelling and retain the remnant parcel as an Agricultural Purposes Only lot.

The appellant argued that the dwelling was a residence surplus to a farming operation resulting from a farm consolidation and that the timing requirements for severance should be applied flexibly.

The Hearing Officers found that the new dwelling, built decades after the original dwelling was demolished and in a different location, was not equivalent to the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the clear and unambiguous 10-year occupation and 2-year application timing rules in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Regional Official Plan were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the applicant to demolish and rebuild a single dwelling.

The appellant's primary concern was the applicant's reliance on an off-site water source located on the appellant's property.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use and met the development criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed, as issues regarding water rights and potential liability were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicants to demolish an existing garage and construct a 1.5-storey detached garage with a storage loft.

The appellants argued the new garage would negatively impact their view and conflict with the Escarpment Rural Area objectives.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use, met the development criteria, and would not have a substantial negative impact on the visual attractiveness of the area, as visual impact is assessed from the public viewshed rather than private properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.