1047467 Ontario Limited and Lakeside Shelving and Racking v. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (Township), 2023 CanLII 1745

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 11, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003979

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 1047467 Ontario Limited and Lakeside Shelving and Racking

Applicants: Kimberly Prior and Montgomery Prior

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To amend Zoning By-law 32-2008 for the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh to facilitate the construction of a cottage

Reference Number: Z09-21

Property Address: 82733 Hunter's Road

Municipality/UT: Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh/Huron

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003979

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003979

OLT Case Name: 1047467 Ontario Limited and Lakeside Shelving and Racking v. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (Township)

Heard: October 19-21, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1047467 Ontario Limited, Lakeside Shelving and Racking and Kenneth Brindley

Paula Lombardi

Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

Christopher J. Manning

Kimberly and Montgomery Prior

Ira T. Kagan and Sarah R. Kagan

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON OCTOBER 21, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The following decision details the Tribunal’s reasons for dismissing an appeal pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act¹ (“Act”) by 1047467 Ontario Limited, Lakeside Shelving and Racking and Kenneth Brindley (“Appellant”) against the decision of Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (“Township”) to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) in relation to the property located at 82733 Hunter’s Road (“subject property”).

2Kimberly and Montgomery Prior (“Applicants”) own the subject property, which is located in a community along Lake Huron commonly referred to as Hunter’s Beach, an area consisting of cottages accessed by privately owned roads and serviced by privately owned drainage infrastructure. The subject property is described as a “second row” property, as it does not have direct frontage onto Lake Huron but is located atop a bluff behind a row of cottages fronting onto the lake. It is currently zoned NE1-1 (Natural Environment – Special) and LR1 (Lakeshore Residential – Seasonal) with Conservation Authority Regulated Lands (“CARL”). The Applicants wish to demolish and rebuild an existing cottage on the subject property. They applied to rezone the entire property to NE1-47 to permit the construction of a cottage within the 100 year lakeshore erosion hazard (“hazard area”), having a front yard setback of 7.1 metres, an interior side yard setback of 0.6 metres, a rear yard setback of 6.1 metres and a maximum lot coverage of 16%.

3County Planning Staff² evaluated the application and recommended approval of same (Exhibit 6 Tab 5, “Staff Report”). The Staff Report refers to an appended letter from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (“MVCA”), which reviewed the application and raised no concerns with the proposed development, noting:

For the portion of the redeveloped cottage footprint within the hazard limit, minimum foundation depths have been provided to seat the structure on the long-term stable slope… The majority of the development for which this amendment is required is located on lands outside the currently mapped erosion hazard limit. Those sections within the hazard will be addressed by the deep foundation system. The existing development footprint within the currently mapped hazard is proposed to decrease slightly. Access to the property is not proposed to change, and remains safe from the perspective of natural hazards.

The Staff Report also refers to drainage plans submitted in support of the application, which were reviewed by B.M. Ross (contracted by the Township to provide engineering services), confirming that the proposed development is not expected to create new negative impacts on surrounding properties due to stormwater.

4The Appellant owns the nearby property located at 33856 Market Road, as well as the private roads used by area cottagers to access their properties, including Market Road and Hunter’s Road. Market Road is accessed from Bluewater Highway No. 21 and is connected to Hunter’s Road. Although during the mid-1990s Market Road was the subject of a road maintenance agreement between the Township, Mr. Brindley and the Hunter’s Beach Cottage Association, that agreement is no longer in place, and, at present, neither the Township nor any of the cottage owners contribute to the maintenance and repair of Market Road or any other private roads in the area.

5A mutual drain (“Drain”) servicing Hunter’s Beach is also located on the Appellant’s property. The Drain includes a catchbasin located at the intersection of Market Road and Hunter’s Road, intended to collect runoff and drainage from surrounding cottages. The Drain is subject to a private mutual drain agreement (“MDA”) pursuant to the Drainage Act³, signed in 1984 by Mr. Brindley and 18 area cottage owners⁴. The terms of the MDA stipulate, inter alia, that costs associated with the construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of the Drain are to be borne by the cottage owners and Mr. Brindley is not required to contribute any amounts to the improvement or maintenance of same. Over the years, the Drain has fallen into a state of disrepair and an engineering estimate obtained by the Appellant indicates that repairing the Drain will cost approximately $400,000.00 to $500,000.00.

THE HEARING

6As this was the first and only hearing event scheduled, the Tribunal confirmed that proper Notice was given and marked the Affidavit of Service as Exhibit 1. Although not raised by the Parties, the Tribunal granted Party Status to the Applicants as owners of the lands subject to the Appeal. No other requests for status were received in advance of the hearing and no individuals appeared seeking status.

7On behalf of the Appellant, the Tribunal heard from Tom Storey, who was qualified without objection to provide land use planning opinion evidence. Kenneth Brindley also provided lay evidence in relation to the condition of the private roads and the Drain as well as the MDA.

8The Applicants called Roger Schieck, professional engineer and author of relevant stormwater management/drainage plans for the proposed development, who was qualified without objection to provide opinion evidence on matters of stormwater drainage restricted to the contents of same. Celina Whaling-Rae, County Planner and author of the Staff Report, appeared under summons to give land use planning opinion evidence. The Tribunal qualified her to do so notwithstanding an objection from the Appellant’s counsel based on her status as a candidate (rather than a full member) of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. The Tribunal so ruled because Ms. Whaling-Rae (who executed an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty and agreed to provide objective evidence) possesses relevant education and work experience and, as the author of the Staff Report recommending approval of the ZBA, her opinion was considered relevant and necessary for the Tribunal to arrive at a decision.

9Finally, on behalf of the Township the Tribunal heard from Steve Jackson, a professional engineer employed with B.M. Ross, who reviewed the stormwater/drainage plans submitted in support of the application. Mr. Jackson was qualified without objection to provide opinion evidence on matters of hydraulics and hydrology.

Positions of the Parties

10There was general agreement that existing drainage works and private roads servicing the the Hunter’s Beach area are in need of improvement. However, the Parties were at odds with respect to whether such issues were appropriately addressed in the context of the ZBA application and this appeal.

11The Appellant argued the proposed development is premature in light of “unresolved issues” relating to the condition of the Drain and the private roads. Concerns were raised in relation to flooding, erosion and the instability of area banks; the lack of a public road network; and lack of appropriate services for the proposed cottage, including potable drinking water and septic systems. It was submitted that allowing the proposed development without addressing such issues would result in risks to the environment and public health and safety. Given the foregoing, the Appellant urged the Tribunal to refuse the ZBA, submitting that it does not represent good planning in the public interest; is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”); and fails to conform with applicable Official Plans which, in this instance, are the Huron County Official Plan (“COP”) and the Township Official Plan (“ACWOP”)

12In the alternative, the Appellant requested the Tribunal approve the ZBA subject to the imposition of a holding symbol (“H”) requiring, at a minimum, that:

• further studies be submitted in support of the application, including an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) and a slope stability analysis;
• the Applicants obtain all necessary permits, including an MVCA permit and permits in relation to septic/private servicing; and
• both the Drain and the private road be brought up to a reasonable and acceptable standard through some type of development or other agreement.

13The Applicants and the Township were aligned in the position that the Appeal should be dismissed. It was submitted that County Planning Staff’s recommendation (ultimately accepted by Township Council) was based upon a thorough evaluation of the proposal against relevant legislation and policies and included significant engineering and environmental consultation over and above what is normally required for such an application.

14The Applicants and the Township were further aligned in the position that the Tribunal should not impose a holding symbol. The MVCA letter, which did not call for any further study and raised no concerns with the proposed development, was offered to the Tribunal as a complete answer to apprehensions raised by the Appellant with respect to environmental and public health and safety risks and the assertion that additional studies should be required to support the application. It was further submitted that obtaining necessary permits (MVCA and private servicing) are steps to be taken following approval of the ZBA and are not appropriately included as part of an H. Finally, it was submitted that the “unresolved issues” raised by the Appellant constitute private and/or wider infrastructure matters not within the four corners of the issues to be determined by the Tribunal on a ZBA appeal, and it was noted that more appropriate avenues of redress for such issues exist, including an arbitration clause within the MDA, which the Appellant has chosen not to avail himself of.

Drainage and Access

15The lay witness, Mr. Brindley, testified that erosion in the Hunter’s Beach area has long been a challenge and the MDA was put in place in an attempt to help stabilize the banks and address erosion issues. His evidence was that, over the years, the Drain has not been properly maintained and no longer adequately contains stormwater runoff from area cottages, resulting in associated drainage impacts (including washouts to area roads and in particular, Market Road during periods of heavy rain). He testified that those bound by the terms of the MDA have repeatedly refused to pay for the substantial Drain repairs needed.

16Although area cottagers use both Market Road and Hunter’s Road to access their properties, Mr. Brindley testified that the only road they are legally permitted to use is Market Road. In any event, he expressed concerns that the private road network which affords access to the cottage properties is unsafe, citing washout from the improperly maintained Drain which presents safety issues for vehicles, and in particular, heavy trucks. He also raised a number of other unrelated safety concerns in relation to the roads, noting cottagers disobey signs he has posted prohibiting heavy trucks, drive on the roads at unsafe speeds, and often park their vehicles along the roads, impeding safe passage.

17In relation to the proposed development specifically, Mr. Brindley testified that Hunter’s Road acts as a berm between the subject property and the catchbasin, which has eroded over the years, contributing to unsafe conditions in the area. He expressed concern that runoff from the proposed development would result in negative impacts, exacerbating the state of disrepair of the catchbasin, the Drain and the roads. He also strongly disagreed with the conclusions of the MVCA, and warned of risks to the environment and public health and safety should the proposed development be permitted to proceed, specifically noting that other properties in the area could be destroyed by erosion resulting from allowing development within the 100 year lakeshore erosion hazard in the absence of further study (such as slope stability analysis and EIS) and in the absence of improvements to the Drain and roads.

18In response to the concerns raised by the Appellant with respect to potential drainage impacts, the Applicant called Mr. Schieck, who authored the stormwater drainage and grading plan, and the Township called Mr. Jackson (the engineer at B.M. Ross, who reviewed same). Messrs. Schieck and Jackson gave uncontested evidence that the overall drainage patterns and pre- and post-development amount of impervious area would remain virtually the same. Ultimately, they opined that the proposed development would not create new adverse impacts on surrounding properties in terms of stormwater management and drainage, nor would it result in an exacerbation of any existing drainage issues in the area.

The Appellant’s Planning Evidence

19Notwithstanding the primary relief requested and the grounds for same advanced by the Appellant, Mr. Storey did not recommend refusal of the ZBA. Instead, he testified that, from a land use planning perspective he had “no issues” with the proposed development, provided the Parties enter into an agreement (or, at the very least, attempt to do so) with a view to addressing the state of the Drain and/or roads. As such, he recommended the Tribunal approve the ZBA subject to a holding symbol.

20Mr. Storey’s evidence was principally focused upon the holding symbol but his suggestion for the H differed significantly from the Appellant’s request for alternative relief. Mr. Storey did not recommend the H include requirements for further studies, permits, or even that works be completed to improve the Drain and the roads. Rather, he recommended only that the H be used as a way to encourage the Parties to engage in discussions aimed at resolving the drainage and/or access issues raised by the Appellant.

21In support of this approach, the Tribunal’s attention was drawn to ACWOP s. 6.3, which speaks to protection of the natural environment thorough stewardship and community cooperation and the use of “innovative tools” to further enhance the natural environment goals of the plan. In addition, Mr. Storey referred to s. 9.11, which encourages informal processes of conflict resolution and states, in part, “if properly managed, conflict can be a catalyst for positive change”. The Tribunal was urged to view the H as an innovative tool to “get the Parties together in a non-adversarial context”.

22At no point was the Tribunal presented with specific language for an H and the manner in which it could be lifted. Instead, Mr. Storey ran through a number of possible scenarios to consider including, but not limited to: requiring the Parties to sign an agreement (or alternatively only requiring them to engage in discussions) addressing the roads, the Drain, or both. A variety of possibilities in terms of eventual outcomes were also presented, including, but not limited to: the Township purchasing the roads from the Appellant and assuming responsibility for liability, improvement and maintenance thereof; the Applicants and/or the Township shouldering the costs of improvements to the Drain (despite the terms of the MDA apportioning responsibility for costs in different percentages to the various signators); or, potentially, a Petition for Drainage Works under the Drainage Act being made by those bound by the MDA.

23Ultimately, the Tribunal was advised to impose the holding symbol “as an opening step to get the Parties to the table, leaving it up to them to determine how they want to proceed”. Despite the lack of clarity surrounding the proposed H, Mr. Storey was abundantly clear that failure to arrive at an agreement (or the unwillingness of any party discuss an agreement) ought not to bar the Applicants from proceeding with the development as proposed. In response to questions from counsel for the Township, who noted that the Township is not in favour of the imposition of an H, Mr. Storey admitted that, without the willing participation of the Township, the H would be short-lived, resulting in a circular exercise necessitating some type of automatic or time-limited lifting thereof.

24With respect to the specific legislative tests to be met, Mr. Storey testified that he “did not form a clear conclusion with respect to consistency with the PPS”. He did, however, draw attention to policies respecting Rural Lands and Areas in Municipalities which speak to promoting development that can be sustained by rural service levels, as well as policies which speak to sustaining healthy, liveable and safe communities. He noted that the existing Drain and road conditions are inextricably linked, and testified that the longer the Drain remains in disrepair the more it will cost to fix. He drew attention to to the following passage from Part IV - Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System:

Taking action to conserve land and resources avoids the need for costly remedial measures to correct problems and supports economic and environmental policies.

Although he acknowledged the existence of an arbitration clause within the MDA, he noted the high costs associated with litigation and opined that, in the spirit of aforementioned vision, the ZBA application presents an opportunity to address drainage and access issues without litigation in a proactive and holistic manner better serving the public interest and benefitting not just the Parties to this Appeal but the wider Hunter’s Beach community.

25With respect to the issue of conformity with relevant Official Plans, Mr. Storey similarly offered no conclusive opinion, noting conditions exist on the site which should be further studied/reviewed and “a lot would depend on the outcome of a slope stability study”. He referenced s. 6.3.8 of the COP, which specifies that where development is proposed within or adjacent to natural features, the Municipality is required to consult with the local Conservation Authority and/or the Huron County Biologist to determine if an EIS is required. He noted ACWOP s. 11 requires an EIS when development is proposed in or adjacent to significant natural features. Mr. Storey testified that the ACWOP does not include a definition of development” so he looked to Zoning By-law 32-2008 (“ZBL”), which defines redevelopment as development subsequent to the total or partial removal of buildings from land. Given that the proposal is to demolish and reconstruct an existing cottage, he opined that an EIS should have been required as part of a complete application. Despite the foregoing, he did not recommend refusal of the ZBA nor did he recommend that an EIS be required as part of the recommended holding symbol.

26He also drew attention to relevant provisions within the ZBL addressing CARL and adjacent lands as well as hazard lands, including s. 3.7 and 3.16:

3.7 “CARL” Conservation Authority Regulated Land & Adjacent Lands

No development is permitted in Conservation Authority Regulated Lands or adjacent lands, which are defined as lands within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant wetland or within 50 metres of all other significant natural features until it has been determined that the proposed development does not result in negative impacts upon the natural environment features or functions of the significant natural environment.

3.16 Hazard Land Requirements

… Hazard lands are those lands that are susceptible to flooding or erosion, have steep slopes or soil instability or other environmental or human made hazard.

No development shall be permitted on hazard lands or adjacent to hazard lands until required studies have been completed to the satisfaction of, and approved by, the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh and the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority. All hazard lands are subject to this general provision. Development on vacant Lakeshore Residential (LR1 and LR2) lots within the 100 year erosion hazard will be controlled with a holding zone (-h). The holding symbol may be lifted when necessary studies are completed and approved in accordance with the requirements of this regulated area under the Conservation Authority jurisdiction.

He noted that the ZBA, as enacted, does not include a provision seeking relief from the foregoing. However, he also acknowledged that the subject property is not a vacant lot and, on cross examination, conceded that: the foregoing provisions do not stand as an outright prohibition on development in such areas; prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Township will have to be satisfied that the proposed development will have no negative impacts on the environment; and he acknowledged the MVCA (which was aware of the proposed siting of the cottage) took no issue with the ZBA or the proposed development nor did the agency require further studies of any kind. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Storey said that he preferred and relied upon the evidence of the lay witness, Mr. Brindley, over the MVCA with respect to environmental matters.

27Finally, with respect to the roads, the Tribunal was referred to a number of sections within both the ZBL and the ACWOP, including but not limited to ACWOP s. 8.5.4.13 which states:

Vehicle access will be provided by a public road developed to municipal standards. For existing seasonal lots, access may be provided by a public road or existing right-of-way developed to a satisfactory standard.

While Mr. Storey confirmed that there is an existing right-of-way for the area cottagers, he relied upon the evidence of Mr. Brindley, who testified that the road conditions are not of a satisfactory standard and referenced the Public Meeting Minutes as well as the Staff Report, which recognize existing infrastructure issues in the area.

The Applicant’s Planning Evidence

28In contrast to Mr. Storey, Ms. Whaling-Rae offered a definitive and unwavering opinion that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to applicable OPs and has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest. In support of same, she noted the development is located in a settlement area and will be built to a standard which:

• avoids and mitigates risks to public health and safety;
• creates no new negative impacts to surrounding properties and the environment since stormwater runoff will not increase;
• will be subject to a reduction in the maximum lot coverage (currently 25%, limited to 16% by the proposed ZBA); and
• has been reviewed by relevant agencies including the MVCA, which has confirmed it aligns with Natural Hazard policies and shoreline considerations.

29She commented upon applicable COP and ACWOP policies including, but not limited to: ACWOP s. 6.4.6, which allows development within the NE designation provided no alternative location exists outside the designation and for lake bank properties, no alternative buildings site exists outside of the 100 year erosion potential and natural hazards are addressed through appropriate engineering measures. She opined that the proposed development aligns with all of the foregoing and will, in fact, result in an improvement upon the existing condition, noting:

• there is no suitable building site outside of the NE designation;
• as compared to the existing cottage, the rebuilt cottage will have less area situated within the 100 year lakeshore erosion and the majority of the rebuilt cottage will be located outside of the 100 year erosion hazard; and
• the portion which will be situated within the hazard will be constructed with a deep foundation to mitigate any potential structural safety concerns.

30She testified that, in accordance with applicable COP and ACWOP policies, the MVCA was consulted and, out of an abundance of caution in light of concerns raised by the Appellant, the County Biologist was also consulted. She noted s. 6.1 of the ACWOP prohibits new development on the lake bank and she opined that s. 6.11, which requires an EIS when development is proposed in or adjacent to natural features, is applicable to new development. Ms. Whaling-Rae testified that she relied upon the environmental expertise of the County Biologist and the MVCA, who were also of the opinion that that further studies (including an EIS) were unnecessary in this case, as the proposal is for redevelopment.

31Again, out of an abundance of caution, Ms. Whaling-Rae testified that she involved the Township engineer (B.M. Ross) who reviewed the stormwater/drainage plan submitted in support of the application, as well as the concerns raised by the Appellant. She relied upon the conclusions and evidence of Messrs. Schieck and Jackson who determined the proposed development will not result in new impacts or exacerbate existing impacts from a drainage and stormwater management perspective. With respect to the Appellant’s concerns that the proposed development cannot be adequately serviced (potable water/septic), Ms. Whaling-Rae pointed out that future permits will be required and, in the course of evaluating the application, she liaised with the Chief Building Official, who expressed no concerns with respect to the availability of potable water supply and the approximate location of the septic system proposed in accordance with ACWOP s. 6.4.6.9.

32With respect to access, she noted that while ACWOP s. 6.4.6.11 requires sites to be serviced by a fully maintained municipal or provincial road, the policy goes on to state that alternative standards may apply to existing developed areas. Although no detail is provided in order to evaluate whether such alternative standards are satisfactory, Ms. Whaling-Rae noted that in the case of Hunter’s Beach, the private roads have been the long-established level of servicing and that the standards expected of Township roads are not the same for private roads such as the ones in this area. It was also noted that the MVCA letter indicates access to the property is not proposed to change and remains safe from the perspective of natural hazards.

33Overall, Ms. Whaling-Rae advised that the ZBL is in the public interest and represents good planning as it is sensitive to the geographic and environmental context of the site and area and allows development that will not exacerbate existing (or create new) impacts, reducing development pressures away from other lands and, in particular, prime agricultural lands. From an environmental and public safety perspective, she reiterated the reasons the proposal represents an improvement upon the existing conditions and noted that a concerted effort has been made to mitigate erosion through engineering solutions and a reduction in maximum lot coverage to ensure the impervious area does not increase.

34When asked to comment upon Mr. Storey’s recommendation for the imposition of a holding symbol, Ms. Whaling-Rae admitted she could only speak to this issue generally due to the lack of specific language in relation thereto. She testified that she had not previously seen such an approach taken with respect to lands within the Natural Environment designation, was not aware of any situations in which an H had been imposed against the will of the Township, and opined that the proposed H would not yield a resolution to the specific issues raised by the Appellant in terms of drainage and access. Ultimately, she recommended that the Tribunal approve the ZBA as drafted.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

35Having considered the evidence, submissions and authorities before it, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal. While Mr. Storey referenced specific sections of the PPS and applicable OPs, raising what the Tribunal would characterize as loosely held concerns in relation thereto, ultimately such concerns did not lead him to recommend the primary relief requested by the Appellant. In fact, he raised no definitive land use planning issues with the proposal and was quite clear that the Development should be permitted to proceed, even in the face of the failure of any holding symbol the Tribunal might see fit to impose.

36In contrast, Ms. Whaling-Rae offered a decisive planning analysis and opinion which satisfied the Tribunal that the proposed ZBA and the development it will permit are representative of good planning in the public interest and demonstrate: consistency with the PPS; conformity with both the COP and ACWOP; as well as regard for matters of Provincial interest. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal wholly accepted the uncontested evidence of Messrs. Schieck and Jackson and placed considerable weight upon the letter from the MVCA.

37Finally, while s. 9.7 of the ACWOP addresses the use of holding symbols:

A holding symbol may be used in the zoning by-law in connection with any land use zone, in accordance with s. 36 of the Planning Act. The zoning by-law will allow existing uses to continue in areas covered by a holding symbol and will specify the uses to be permitted at such time as the holding symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law.

The Tribunal finds that neither the H recommended by Mr. Storey nor the one requested by the Appellant are appropriate under the circumstances. Like many land holdings in cottage areas, the subject property and surrounding properties rely upon private access and private servicing. While it is acknowledged that the private services in this area may well require improvements, the proposed use of the subject property is not changing and the proposed development will not result in new impacts or an exacerbation of existing impacts upon the Hunter’s Beach area or its services.

38Counsel for the Applicant and the Township submitted that the existing drainage and access issues raised by the Appellant constitute private and/or wider infrastructure matters. They argued that the imposition of a holding symbol compelling the Township to enter into an agreement with the Appellant with respect to the private roads strays improperly into the jurisdiction of the Township Council. With respect to the Drain, it was argued that it is inappropriate to use a holding symbol to compel the Township’s involvement in private matters and/or to circumvent the terms of the MDA (which involves a number of other parties and provides a means of redress) to require the Applicants and/or the Township to shoulder the financial burden associated with repairing the Drain.

39The Tribunal agrees with the foregoing and with the following statement in the Staff Report:

Planning Staff recognize Mr. Brindley’s concerns – however, many of these concerns appear to be with regard to wider infrastructure challenges and not the subject proposal. Staff are of the opinion that the subject application is not the avenue through which these aforementioned concerns may be appropriately addressed.

While there may well be a path to the resolution of the issues raised by the Appellant, a contested ZBA hearing before this Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for same.

ORDER

40The Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.

“S. Braun”

S. Braun

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
2. 2Planning is a shared service between the County and the Township and, as such, County Planning staff was responsible for evaluating the application against all relevant legislation and policies.
3. 3R.S.O. 1990, c. D. 17, as amended
4. 4Paragraph 13 of the MDA provides that the Agreement enures to the benefit of, and is binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties thereto.