Peter Tice

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application by the Norfolk County Committee of Adjustment.

The application sought a minor boundary adjustment to add a 1.181-acre parcel from an adjacent property to the subject property to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a storage facility on underutilized land.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal approve the revised amendment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated February 25, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 3 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to clarify that the revised proposal had regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the County of Norfolk Official Plan, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit residential redevelopment of a former industrial brownfield site.

The parties reached a settlement and jointly tendered uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the revised proposal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represent good planning.

The Tribunal convened a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The parties requested a subsequent conference to provide an update on a road closing procedure and to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further conference and approved revisions to the Procedural Order, including an extension for filing the Issues List.