4 total
Zoning by-law amendment for cannabis production facility approved based on settlement including odour management holding provision.
The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a cannabis production facility with reduced setbacks to a community facility and residential dwellings.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a Holding Provision requiring an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report to address odour concerns.
Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.
The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.
Tribunal amends Drainage Act assessment schedule to apportion 26% Benefit and 74% Outlet Liability.
The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.
The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.
The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.
The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.
Zoning by-law amendment for mixed-use development upheld; design concerns deferred to site plan control.
The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a site-specific rezoning for a mixed-use building containing a dental clinic and five residential units.
The appellants raised concerns regarding the building's height, style, placement, parking, and potential impacts on the flood fringe zone.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants' design concerns could be addressed at the site plan control stage.
Motion for leave to appeal decision on short-term rentals dismissed without substantive reasons.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.
The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.
