Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Official Plan Amendments

  1. Recycling Specialties Inc. v. AAA Professional Self Storage Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Industrial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a hearing in relation to appeals filed by AAA Professional Self Storage Inc. against decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment filed by Recycling Specialties Inc. in the Town of Midland. The applications would permit a facility to receive and sort construction waste (concrete, drywall, etc.). The issues included compatibility with surrounding uses, sufficiency of environmental and traffic studies, and appropriate mitigation.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part; OPA modified and approved; Zoning By-law approved


    Reasons:

    From the planner’s evidence, it was clear to the Board that the subject site is a suitable location for a Recycling Facility given the surrounding uses. Environmental features are not negatively impacted as a study to address natural features was properly completed. The proposed recycling facility will not be handling hazardous or organic materials.


    Document(s):



  2. Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation v. City of Owen Sound

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    In March 2012, Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation applied for an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law 2010-78. The intent was to increase the permitted Gross Floor Area and to relax or eliminate the Gross Floor Area and unit size restrictions, so as to facilitate a new retail development. However, City Council refused the application, with concerns about potential market impact. The Applicants appealed to the Board. However, after a series of pre-hearing conferences, the Applicants and the City agreed on modifications to the application as well as a draft Zoning By-law.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The parties were able to agree on a new draft Zoning By-law, which formed part of their settlement. The Board also considered the opinion of expert planner Wendy Nott, who stated, “the settlement is appropriate, in conformance with applicable policy, and represents good land-use planning in the public interest.” The Board found no reason to disagree.


    Document(s):



  3. Simcoe (County) v. Simcoe (County)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a second pre-hearing conference related to the new County of Simcoe Official Plan and Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe conformity exercise for the County of Simcoe. The Board is being asked to adjourn this hearing and order the County of Simcoe to undertake whatever public consultation the Chair deems necessary.


    Held:

    Adjournment denied and Official Plan approved in part


    Reasons:

    The Board orders that the request for an adjournment is denied. The Board is satisfied that the requirements for public consultation have been satisfactorily met. In all other respects, the Official Plan of the County of Simcoe is approved with the exception of the sections under appeal as set out in the attachments.


    Document(s):



  4. Davis v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Official Plan Amendments, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board of the refusals of the Township to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey boathouse. The OPA will permit lot coverage of 11.9% whereas maximum is 10%. The ZBLA will permit side yard setback of 42 feet rather than the required 45 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal granted


    Reasons:

    Settlement was reached and appeal of OPA was withdrawn. Further, the ZBLA conforms to the OP and represents good planning, will have no adverse environmental impacts, and the built-form of the boathouse will not dominate the natural environment and it will maintain the existing character of the shoreline. In addition, the proposed development will only cover 16.3% of the actual shoreline, as compared to the 25.0% limit contained in the OP.


    Document(s):



  5. Thomasfield Homes Limited v. Whiteley

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Motion to the Board to dismiss an appeal of Thomasfield’s approvals for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision pursuant to subsections 17(45), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act. Further, the appellant states that the City should require a Secondary Plan on lands surrounding the subject property; applicant be required to conduct a more detailed Environmental Impact Study; no development on southern and western portions of subject property; conditions 13, 15 and 25 should be more detailed; and development should be modified to include appropriate parkland dedication.


    Held:

    Motion granted, appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent planning grounds upon which the plan or part of the plan that is subject to the appeal could be approved or refused by the Board. The Board stated that raising apprehensions is not sufficient to sustain an appeal, and therefore the Board grants the Motion to Dismiss on the ground enunciated under subsection (a)(i) only of subsections 17(35), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  6. 1066517 Ontario Inc. v. Township of Grey Highlands

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The first Pre-hearing Conference to consider procedural matters for the hearing which will deal with appeals filed by 1066517 Ontario Inc. on Council’s refusal to approve its application for Official Plan Amendment, rezoning and consent, seeking to permit a commercial enterprise and other commercial uses at a 1.4 ha parcel.


    Held:

    Hearing is scheduled for future date


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



  7. Brookfield Power Wind Corp. v. Town of Kingsville

    Location:

    Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Brookfield Power Wind Corp. has appealed to the Board under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, as amended, from Council’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official plan for the Town of Kingsville as well as a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 59-1998 and Zoning By-law 1988-15 of the Town of Kingsville, to redesignate lands within the municipality, add definitions, regulation and setbacks to evaluate and permit application for Wind Energy Conservation Systems.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board recognized that the safeguards itemized as preconditions for the wind farm, the assessments and reports and the locational rules on frontage, area and setback, were are consistent with the principles of sound planning. The Board also agreed that the amendments to the Official Plans and the Zoning By-law advanced the stated objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement.


    Document(s):



  8. Weselan Farms Limited v. Norfolk County

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe, Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal of Official Plan Amendment 22 and an appeal of the City of Nanticoke’s Zoning By-law 30-Z-2007.


    Held:

    Settlement of OPA 22 and appeal allowed for ZBL


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied that the proposed zoning amendment conforms to both the City of Nanticoke Official Plan and the adopted but not yet approved Norfolk County Official Plan. Further, the Board accepts that the proposed amendment represents good planning and is in the public interest.


    Document(s):



  9. SkyPower Corp. v. Norfolk County

    Location:

    Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Official Plan Amendments, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    SkyPower Corp. proposes to construct 150,000 solar panels on an 86 acre farm located at 336 Port Ryerse Road, Simcoe, Ontario in the County of Norfolk to produce 10 MWe of solar power. SkyPower has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to purchase this farm from David Ryerse. SkyPower has received all other regulatory approvals required from federal and provincial governments and has entered into contracts to sell the solar power from this location. SkyPower requires Official Plan Amendments and a Zoning Amendment to construct the nearly 11 foot high angular solar panels here in this agricultural area. The proposal calls for three quarters of the land to remain in agriculture and be used for nursery and other horticultural purposes. Kelly Harris and Weselan Farms Limited, the owners of abutting properties, appealed these approvals. The main motion was to dismiss the Appeals of Harris and Weselan Farms.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds, upon reading the Provincial Policy Statement that the relevant locational criteria relating to alternative and renewable energy systems are found within the Policy Statement. The Board does not find that the reasons for appeal could affect the outcome of an ultimate hearing of this matter, nor do they take an issue worthy of adjudication. In summary, the Board finds that the reasons for the Appeals set out by Mr. Harris fail to meet the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act and hereby dismisses the appeals.


    Document(s):



  10. Signum Corporation v. City of Peterborough and Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Signum Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act in regard to Official Plan Amendment No. 126 of the City of Peterborough and further, has appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Act in regard to Zoning By-law Nos. 04-037 and 04-038 of the City of Peterborough. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has brought a motion under subsections 17(45) and 34(25) of the Act to dismiss the appeals. Wal-Mart seeks its costs incurred in bringing this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.


    Held:

    Motion granted


    Reasons:

    Based on the affidavit evidence submitted by Wal-Mart the Board finds that OPA 126 and By-laws 04-37 and 04-38 are consistent with the City’s policies. The Official Plan sets out a multi-nodal retail commercial structure, which reflects the Wal-Mart site, adjacent to the designated Portage Node and the proposed Signum site in the southwest part sector of the City, which is independent of a Shopping Node designation. The Board finds that the proposal before it represents an incremental expansion of the designated Portage Node and that it reinforces the City’s planned commercial structure.


    Document(s):



  11. Springhill Development Corp. and Dahmer and DeGraff v. City of Orillia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicant wishes to build an 8-storey condominium building on the site containing 74 residential units. This is an appeal to the Board under subsection 34(19) and 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 2001-173 of the City of Orillia and from a decision of the City of Orillia to refuse approval of Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied there are sufficient controls relating to the Site Plan and the Holding Zone in the By-law to provide for a good development. In this case, the Board finds that the proposed development will have a minimal acceptable impact on the neighbours. While there will be impact to properties surrounding the condominiums development and some sunlight and privacy will be lost, overall the Board finds the impact acceptable, recognizing that the proposed development may set a precedent for what can be developed along the waterfront.


    Document(s):



  12. 1358872 Ontario Ltd. v. Neebing (Municipality)

    Location:

    Northern Ontario


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appeals related to a proposal to construct a Seasonal Trailer Park adjacent to the river-bank of the Cloud River at Cloud Bay, in the Municipality of Neebing. The proposed trailer park is located on a narrow band of land owned by Eagle Mountain Resort. Amendments to the Municipality’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law are required to implement the proposal. Official Plan Amendment No. 10 would redesignate one-third of the subject lands as “Recreational” with the balance redesignated as “Environmental Protection.” The Zoning By-law amendment would rezone the lands to Tourist Park Commercial Exception One Zone and various Use Limitation Exception One Zones.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    While the Board took into consideration that fact that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the Development Agreement could be edited and corrected to be more in line with the Municipality’s documents, they did not find this argument persuasive enough. They did, however, find more persuasive the fact that the proposal was not compatible with what was acknowledged as a pristine environment. An environment that is unique on the north shores of Lake Superior, which must be protected from harm rather than be put at risk.


    Document(s):



  13. 300 John Street v. Markham (Town)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This proceeding deals with the proposal for the partial demolition of the existing commercial mall in order to make room for a large format store for home improvement merchandise. The Town rejected the application for the Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments that would enable the proposal to come into being. The owner launched the requisite appeals to the Board relating to the three planning instruments that are set out in the title of proceedings.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Boards decision lies on the overall poor planning and design of the proposed building. The pedestrian conductivity, the lack of an elevator, the two tier parking formats, the outdoor display of goods and wares and a large amount of outdoor space devoted to a garden centre all contribute to our sense of unease even though the Board is aware that some tinkering may be of some help. The Board is of the view that a different planning exercise dealing with the implication of such a shift must be done prior to an approval.


    Document(s):



  14. City of Peterborough Downtown BIA Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings Ltd. and AON inc. v. Searun Estates Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Downtown BIA/CIP, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings ltd., City of Peterborough Downtown BIA and others have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24), 34(19) of the Planning Act and section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, from a decision to the City of Peterborough to approve of Proposed Amendment No. 104 to the Official Plan for the City. The applications would permit the redevelopment of a site outside of the Commercial Business District (CBD) for use as a large Chapters/Starbucks.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed, Decision subsequently amended


    Reasons:

    While it may be desirable for Chapters to locate in the CBD, they are not prohibited from locating elsewhere. The applications are consistent with the policy framework.
    The Board having considered the written submissions of the parties on the requests of AON Inc. and Mason Homes Limited to amend the Board’s decision of August 20, 1999, Decision/Order No. 1558, and especially the letter of October 4, 1999 from the City of Peterborough, hereby amends its decision and order by deleting “4.4.5.1” from the first line on page 16 and substituting “4.4.9.1.”


    Document(s):



  15. East Beach Community Assn. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Whether the appeals disclose any apparent planning grounds on which appeals can be given or refused.


    Held:

    Grants motion to dispense with the hearing


    Reasons:

    It is not good enough to simply raise apprehension. It would not constitute apparent planning ground by saying that further expert study is required with the hope that once a hearing is convened, more real issues can come forth. The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with iron-clad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.


    Document(s):