Plan 4035/5035 - Application of Planning Law PDF

Plan 4035/5035: Application of Planning Law (Week 5) February 6, 2025 6 February 1 2025 Municipal planning powers Provinces give municipalities land control via Planning Act and Local Government/Municipal Government Acts Central planning policy document is the Official Plan (Municipal Planning Strategy in NS) Veto power via Statements of Provincial Interest, also must (in most cases) review Official Plans 2 Nova Scotia’s MGA Stresses: good government, provision of desirable things, and safe/viable communities Municipal planning “must be reasonably consistent with” Statements of Provincial Interest (NS MGA) Provincial v. Local authority = defining point in planning law 3 Serving two masters? Carrel: “Anomaly of council elected by citizens, yet controlled by the province contributes…to the lack of respect many citizens have... The need to serve two masters also causes frustrations [for] municipal politicians…” 4 Questions? 5 Case Studies 6 Decision of a Development Officer not subject to “appeal”? Shooters Sports Inc. v. Municipality of East Hants, 2002 NSSC 020 Application for an order declaring that the Land Use By-law for the Municipality of East Hants permits operation of a “licensed billiards club open to the public” No application for a development permit Shooters wanted to change the kind of liquor license it had from “special premises liquor license” to “restaurant and lounge license” Requested a zoning confirmation letter (required for Provincial licensing) – Development Officer refused to provide, advised that a development agreement would be required for the proposed use 7 Shooters v. East Hants East Hants: they should have applied for a Development Permit Shooters: we aren’t proposing a “development”, so no application for a Development Permit is required No decision of a Development Officer to appeal to the Board Relied on SCC in Saint-Romuald (City) v. Olivier (2001), 204 D.L.R. (4th) 284: Justice Binnie recognized that permitted uses (or legal non-conforming uses) should be interpreted with flexibility so as to accommodate "the real and reasonable expectations" of the landowner, brought about by "normal evolution". That is, the intensity of the legal use may be increased so as to "adapt to the demands of the market or the technology that are relevant to it". 8 Shooters v. East Hants Determined that the change in type of liquor license was a “reasonable evolution of prior activities” No change in use Shooters is permitted to operate a ”licensed billiard club open to the public” Development Officer must issue the zoning confirmation letter No Development Permit required 9 Questions? 10 Example: language in a current NS MPS 11 Questions? 12 Decision of a Provincial Minister not subject to “appeal”? Special Planning Area under the NS Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act Provincial designation to remove planning decisions from HRM No obligation to consult or engage with community No statutory right of appeal Fall River Opportunity Site C – HRM had already engaged community on best uses for this site Application for (1) an amendment to the Municipal Planning Strategy; and (2) a development agreement for 120-unit development denied by HRM Regional Council in 2022 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/residents-ask-n-s-supreme-court-to-overturn- provincial-approval-of-fall-river-development-1.7387576 13 Questions? 14 What happens if a Development Officer makes a mistake and no one notices? HRM Charter: 278 (2) [Municipal] subdivision approval is not required for a subdivision (a) if all lots to be created, including the remainder lot, exceed ten hectares in area; … Intention is to allow subdivision of land for resource and agricultural uses No review by municipal development officer No frontage requirements Lots created not eligible for residential development BUT a development officer in HRM had issued several development permits for single unit dwellings on these 10+ hectare properties… and nobody noticed…until their neighbours also applied, and were turned down 15 What happens if a Development Officer makes a mistake and no one notices? Legally - no ability to issue permits for residential uses on properties without frontage on a public street Illegally issued permit has no effect Politically – solution required! Amendments to Regional MPS and several Land Use By-laws to allow residential development on the lots Only applies to lots created before the mistake was found Requirements for access easements and private road standards Without the changes, this situation would likely have led to liability on the part of the municipality (professional negligence) 16 Questions? 17 3012543 Nova Scotia Ltd. V. Mahone Bay et al., 2000 NSCA #93 (“Mahone Bay”) Decided 6 years after Heritage Trust (1994) Decision written by same judge, Hallett, J.A. Builds on the principles stated in Heritage Trust (1994) Elaborates on the approach to identify the intent of the MPS As planners, how can we write an MPS so the intent is clear? Should we be trying to? Who needs to be able to read and understand the MPS? Council Staff Developers UARB The public 18 Mahone Bay You are here Mahone Bay 19 Mahone Bay Facts: Development agreement application Discretionary planning process requiring Council approval 24 unit multi-unit dwelling on South Main Street in Mahone Bay Property designated Industrial on the Generalized Future Land Use Map (GFLUM) Property zoned Industrial Shoreline by the Land Use By-law 20 Mahone Bay Recommended by staff and approved by Council Mahone Bay Heritage and Cultural Society appealed to UARB Argued that proposals for new multis can only be considered by development agreement in residential zones UARB dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of Council Relied on test in Heritage Trust (1994) Appeal at NSCA is limited to questions of law or jurisdiction 21 Mahone Bay Will not review UARB decisions of fact: This court has a duty to intervene if the [UARB] misinterprets the legislation which confers jurisdiction on the board and, as a result, exceeds its jurisdiction or if the board misinterprets the law which it is required to apply in its decision- making process. … The boards findings of fact within jurisdiction are final and conclusive. (quoting from the Kynock decision) Appeal will succeed if: (1) the UARB misinterpreted, failed to consider or failed to correctly apply relevant legislation; or (2) Mahone Bay Town Council failed to ascribe to the MPS an intent that it can reasonable bear 22 Mahone Bay Intent of an MPS can be difficult to ascertain Often include competing priorities Council can balance priorities as long as its interpretation is one that the language in the MPS “can reasonably bear” There can be multiple “reasonable” interpretations of an MPS’s intent Not necessarily one right answer - but sometimes there is! Mahone Bay MPS and LUB employ “stacked zoning” Zones “stack” on each – e.g. commercial zones list permitted uses plus “any uses permitted in the residential zone” 23 Mahone Bay UARB heard evidence from Councillors about their intent when they approved the MPS and LUB MPS and LUB were adopted concurrently Both adopted after the decision in Heritage Trust (1994) Subject property zoned Shoreline Industrial and included in the Commercial Development Agreement Area Permitted uses in the LUB included residential uses and tourist establishments tourist-related retail activities by development agreement only 24 Mahone Bay MPS Policy 10.16: Permit in the areas designated Industrial Shoreline: (a) Activities and structures which preserve the open character of the area, but not limited to private and public parks. Gazebos, parking areas, wharves, slipways, boathouses, and other recreational and water access uses; (b) All uses allowed in the Commercial (C) zone in accordance with the Commercial (C) Zone Standards (c) All uses allowed in the Industrial zone in accordance with the Industrial (I) Zone Standard Nothing explicitly about residential uses here… what about the stacked zoning? 25 Mahone Bay What about the Land Use By-law? S. 17.1 Permitted Developments (a) Developments Permitted Subject to Industrial Shoreline (IS) Zone Standards, Section 17.3 wharves piers and slipways launching ramps and similar water access uses parks, playgrounds, open spaces and sports fields parking lots gazebos and bandstands to a maximum of 39 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.) boat houses all uses permitted in Subsection 12.1(a) [uses permitted by-right in the Industrial Zone] all uses permitted in Subsection 9.1(a) [uses permitted by-right in the Commercial Zone] (b) Developments Permitted Subject to Other Requirements of this By-law None (c) Developments Permitted by Development Agreement (i) tourist establishments, tourist-related retail activity, office buildings and craft workshops in accordance with Municipal Planning Strategy Policies 10.18 and 7.8. 26 Mahone Bay Section 55 of the Planning Act requires development permitted by development agreement to be identified in the Land Use By-law MGA equivalent is s. 255(2) …when one reads the various policies of the MPS and the by-laws of the Town it is quite clear that the [drafter] did distinguish between the uses permitted as of right and those developments which would only be permitted by agreement. Assumption: that the MPS and LUB drafters knew this and applied this section correctly i.e that if multi-units were permitted by DA in the Industrial Shoreline Zone, the LUB would have said so NSCA found that the UARB failed to recognize the MPS and LUB distinction between uses permitted by-right and uses permitted by development agreement 27 Mahone Bay I would infer from a review of By-law 17.1 that under STACKED ZONING! subparagraph (a) the Town has set out the uses permitted as of a right and under (c) developments that will be permitted by agreement. …Under (a), the uses permitted in the Industrial Shoreline Zone are those permitted in By- law 12.1(a). That By-law sets out the uses permitted in the Industrial (i) Zone. The uses permitted in By-law 12.1(a) do not include residential uses. The uses permitted by By-law 9.1(a) (the Commercial (C) Zone), include all uses permitted in the Residential (R) Zone. However, the uses permitted as of right in the Residential (R) Zone do not include new multi-unit residential developments. Such developments can only be considered by agreement. 28 Mahone Bay Only developments expressly permitted by DA in the Industrial Shoreline Zone (s. 17.1 (c)) are “tourist establishments, tourist-related retail activity, office buildings and craft workshops” MPS and LUB can be read together if they were enacted concurrently i.e the LUB can help illuminate the intent of the MPS only if LUB and MPS enacted together Paragraph 82: In effect, the approach taken by the Planning Director and the majority of the Board was legalistic in that it resembled a search for some way to allow the development to proceed rather than a proper focus on the intent of the MPS. Analysis needs to be broad and purposive, and include the entire MPS 29 Mahone Bay When the policies are read as a whole and in tandem with the requirements of sections 53 and 55(2) of the Planning Act, the intent is clear - the only developments that will be considered by development agreement in the Industrial Shoreline Zone are those described in By-law 17.1(c) (tourist-related businesses, craft workshops and office buildings). This does not include the proposal for a new multi-unit residential building. As I have previously indicated, the failure of the Board to consider the import of sections 53 and 55 of the Planning Act has led the majority of the Board in to error in searching for the intent of the Town’s MPS. Had the majority directed their minds to these requirements of the Act, they would have recognized (i) that the MPS was drafted so as to clearly distinguish between uses permitted as of right and those that would be considered/permitted by development agreement; (ii) that the by-laws shall prescribe the uses permitted in each Zone (s. 53(2)); and (iii) that the developments to be considered by agreement were required to be identified in the Land Use By-law (s. 55(2)). Had the majority recognized these requirement of the Act, they would not likely have erred in their interpretation of the MPS. … When one considers the MPS as a whole … there is a clear intent to restrict development of this area of the shoreline. 30 Mahone Bay The statements quoted from Heritage Trust were made in the context of the issues raised by the facts of that appeal. In Heritage Trust there was a marked conflict between the policy encouraging development and the policy to preserve heritage buildings. A municipal planning strategy often contains competing or even conflicting policies that necessitate a degree of latitude in considering whether a council’s decision to approve a development by agreement was consistent with the strategy. That is, presumably, why the Legislature directed the Board not to interfere with such a decision unless the decision could not reasonably be said to be consistent with the strategy. However, when the intent of the strategy is clear and, when applied to the proposed development, it is clear that the proposal is not the type of development contemplated by the strategy, the Board ought to set aside the decision of Council approving the entry into such an agreement. It ought not try and ferret out an intent that flies in the face of the intent expressed in an MPS which is not clouded by conflicting or competing policies. 31 Mahone Bay A search for the intent of a municipal planning strategy requires a careful review of the strategy represented by the policies of the municipality and, very often, a review of the By-laws implementing the strategy as the by-laws adopted concurrently with the MPS may assist in throwing light on the intent of the strategy. In this instance By-law 17 assists in the interpretation of Policy 10.16. In my opinion, the intent of the MPS for the Town was abundantly clear with respect to the uses that would be permitted or considered by development agreement in the Industrial Shoreline Zone. Appeal allowed 32 Questions? 33 Tsimiklis (Re), 2003 NSCA 30 (“Tsimiklis”) Tsimiklis held development permit for new 11-storey multi-unit dwelling in South End Halifax Made a discretionary application to increase maximum building height on the site from 100 feet to 190 feet Staff supported the application to Council 8 additional storeys (to 19 storeys total) expected to have “no appreciable impact on the neighbourhood” Council approved the requested change to the height precinct Peninsula South Community Association appealed to UARB UARB overturned Council’s decision (allowed the appeal) Tsimiklis appealed to NSCA 34 Tsimiklis Relevant MPS and LUB not adopted concurrently MPS explicitly gives Council power to amend maximum building height in the “Zoning By-law” (Land Use By-law) (Section V, Policy 1.1.1.3) Subject property abuts 33-storey Fenwick Tower (now “The Vuze”) Non-conforming structure built before adoption of MPS Board noted conflicting policies in the MPS: Providing high density residential development vs. interests of scale, compatibility and maintaining neighbourhoods 35 Tsimiklis UARB considered that because Fenwick (Vuze) was a non-conforming use (it isn’t), it should not be considered a permanent part of the neighbourhood (weird?) Board found that because Council had applied the 100ft maximum height precinct after Fenwick (Vuze) was built, Fenwick (Vuze) was already considered in Council’s understanding of an appropriate height for the subject site …The very provision in the LUB that Council wished to amend was thus used by the Board to divine the intent of the MPS. 36 Tsimiklis NSCA relies on the tests on Heritage Trust (1994), Kynock and Mahone Bay, and adds: Where…it appears that a council has crossed a boundary clearly stated in the strategy, the Board’s intervention is triggered. That MPS and LUB were not enacted concurrently shows that changes can be made to the LUB without conflicting with the MPS South End Area Plan (SMP) developed in 1981, height precinct for the subject site not set until 1982 MPS and LUB have both undergone many subsequent amendments independent of each other 37 Tsimiklis The Board did not merely look at the LUB to assist in throwing light on the intent of the MPS but took it as a clear guideline, as if it were a part of the MPS. Since the Board found the height of Fenwick Tower was already reflected in the 100 foot height precinct, Council, the Board said, could at that time, have set a higher ceiling for buildings, but chose not to do so. From this it appears that the Board considered that a subsequent council was unable to amend the LUB in a manner inconsistent with it. The result of this reasoning is that the Board relied on the provision that Council chose to amend as prohibiting Council from doing so. It concluded that the 100 foot height precinct imposed in 1981 by the Council of the day was, in fact, based on the proposition that Fenwick Tower was eventually destined by the good planning principles for extinction. This, in my opinion, was an error of law and an error in interpretation of the provisions of the Overall Objective and of Section V of the MPS, South End Area Plan. Core planning principle: you can not bind future Councils 38 Tsimiklis Appeal allowed (decision of Council restored): …Such notions as “appropriate development” and “undue impact” as applied to the appellant’s project are primarily for the consideration of Council, not the Board. There is no sharp line of division in these policies as they relate to the appellant’s proposal that were crossed by Council. As I have already pointed out, planning decisions often involve compromises and choices between competing policies which are best made by the elected representatives, so long as they are reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. To my mind, read against these policies Council’s decision here is reasonably consistent with that intent. 39 Questions? 40 End of material for next week’s quiz 41 General / quiz review questions? 42 If the Feds and Provinces won’t act… 43 Power of land ownership Crown not bound (by municipalities or by its own rules) Though all departments “shall consider the planning documents of the municipalities” (MGA) Environmental assessment Rules for use of crown land Controls over sale of land and over potential purchasers 44 Provincial environmental planning powers in Canada Shared responsibility – Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Through property ownership (parks, crown land) and authority, huge powers Large-scale exercises (e.g. Greenbelt Act, More Homes Faster) Environmental law + electricity (renewable and wind energy cases) 45 Provincial environmental planning powers in Canada Inside the province, provincial authority Moral and legal questions around provincial vs. national vs. international authority (re: climate change) Authority through statutes: Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (1993) NS’s Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act (2021) 80% of energy from renewable sources by 2030 All new government buildings must be net zero 46 6 February 2025 47 Energy (renewable and otherwise) Solar and wind projects subject to Environmental Assessments (noise, flicker, blade throw, bird mortality) Wind cases are often argued based on adverse effects on health Milner (Re) (2006 NSUARB 102) argued his properties 2.5 and 4km would be impacted Found to be not an “aggrieved person” under the MGA and therefore had no standing to appeal a rezoning to enable wind energy facilities Test: (1) whether there is an adverse effect upon the value of a property as a result of council’s decision; (2) whether there is an adverse effect upon reasonable enjoyment of a person’s property; or (3) whether there is an adverse effect upon the reasonable enjoyment of property occupied by the person UARB decided that Milner did not meet this test – inadequate proof 48 Wainfleet Wind Energy Inc. v. Township of Wainfleet, 2013 ONSC 2194ONSC Decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – equivalent to NS Supreme Court By-laws should be clear and directive – what happens when they aren’t? West Pubnico Point Wind Farm (NS; Source: CBC) 49 Wainfleet Wainfleet Township (“Township”) was not supportive of new wind energy facilities (public statements) Wainfleet Energy (“Wainfleet”) completed a provincial approval process and applied for a permit from the Township Township passed a by-law that required industrial wind turbines to have a 2 km setback from “property” By-law defined “property” as “property line, vacant land, dwelling or structure and their inhabitants of all species used for private or business or public purposes.” Wainfleet said that the terms of the by-law meant that there were no eligible sites to build a new industrial wind turbine in Township Township Planning Director had also claimed this 50 Wainfleet A by-law is invalid for vagueness and uncertainty if (a) it is not sufficiently intelligible to provide an adequate basis for legal debate and reasoned analysis; (b) it fails to sufficiently delineate any rea of risk; and (c) it offers “no grasp” for courts to perform their interpretive function. This standard is exacting, and the onus is on the applicant to establish that the by-law should be declared invalid. … For the setback distance to have any meaning, the two points from which the setback is measured must be clear. The first point is the proposed site of the [industrial wind turbine] and the second is the nearest property. The site, as a measuring point, is clear; the property is not. … 51 Wainfleet The uncertainties arising from the definition of property are beyond those that could provide a basis for legal debate and reasoned analysis. The definition is unintelligible. No developer could reasonably measure its risk in building and [industrial wind turbine] on any particular site. There is simply no logical and reasoned way that a court can grasp the definition sufficiently to perform its required interpretive function. Appeal allowed and the by-law declared invalid and without force or effect as a result of vagueness and uncertainty Setback and problematic definition of “property” 52 Wainfleet There is no allegation of bad faith on the part of township Council. In fact, it appears that the by-law was produced and enacted as a direct result of participatory democracy by township ratepayers. It was motivated by concern about public health arising primarily from the noise generated by [industrial wind turbines]. 53 Questions? 54 Friends of South Canoe Lake (Re), 2013 NSUARB 175 An excerpt only – you will not be tested on the full case! Appeal from a decision of the Chester District Council approving a development agreement for a large wind farm (34 wind turbines over 7,500 acres) South Canoe Wind Farm 55 South Canoe Lake (Re) 56 South Canoe Lake (Re) Wind farm proposal first went through a Provincial process under the NS Environment Act Chester District Council approved the application for a development agreement Decision appealed to the UARB by ”Friends of South Canoe Lake” and others Primary concerns were the setback and noise that would be generated by the turbines 57 South Canoe Lake (Re) LUB applies the “General Basic Zone” to the subject site, but requires a development agreement for wind turbines Development agreement included detailed requirements addressing setbacks and noise Standard of Review: Have the appellants shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the decision by the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester to enter into these Development Agreements failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? 58 South Canoe Lake (Re) Prior to the General Basic Zone being applied in 2003, no zoning at all on the subject site MPS Policy 6.1.1 states that it is Council’s policy to “refrain from imposing detailed land use control” in the General Basic Zone. A wide range of uses can still occur as a matter of right in the Zone, including such often controversial ones as mink farms. Large wind farms such as the one which is the subject of this appeal are specifically contemplated as possible land uses in the General Basic Zone. Appeal denied – decision of Council upheld 59 Questions? 60 61 Heritage In NS heritage designations at both provincial and municipal levels Heritage protection (private or public interest?) vs. wider public benefit Heritage Trust (1994) (last week) Heritage building set top be demolished until heritage DA option came into play Garden Crest Apartments Shows how development advantages can be traded for heritage protection “Density bonus” 62 Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia v. AMK Barrett Investments Inc., 2021 NSCA 42 (Heritage Trust 2021) Application for a heritage development agreement to redevelop a site in the Brunswick Street Heritage Area (Halifax Peninsula, North End) Approved by Regional Council after extensive analysis and negotiations by planning staff, the HRM Heritage Advisory Committee and the developer (4 years) Approval of the development agreement appealed to the UARB by the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia UARB dismissed the appeal, Heritage Trust appealed to NS Court of Appeal Subject site, St. Patrick’s Rectory in front, September 2021 63 Heritage Trust (2021) Huestis House 2273-75 Brunswick Street St. Patrick’s Church 2267 Brunswick Street 64 Heritage Trust (2021) Heritage Trust argued that the design offended: Regional MPS Policy CH-16: CH-16 For lands abutting federally, provincially or municipally registered heritage properties, HRM shall, when reviewing applications for development agreements, rezonings and amendments pursuant to secondary planning strategies, or when reviewing the provision of utilities for said lands, consider a range of design solutions and architectural expressions that are compatible with the abutting federally, provincially or municipally registered heritage properties by considering the following: … (b) ensuring that new development is visually compatible with yet distinguishable from the abutting registered heritage property. To accomplish this, an appropriate balance must be struck between mere imitation of the abutting building and pointed contrast, thus complementing the abutting registered property in a manner that respects its heritage value; 65 Heritage Trust (2021) RMPS Policy CH-16 cont’d (c) ensuring that new developments respect the building scale, massing, proportions, profile and building character of abutting federally, provincially or municipally registered heritage structures by ensuring that they: (i) incorporate fine-scaled architectural detailing and human-scaled building elements[;] (ii) reinforce the structural rhythm (i.e., expression of floor lines, structural bays, etc.) of abutting federally, provincially or municipally registered heritage properties; and (iii) any additional building height proposed above the pedestrian realm mitigate its impact upon the pedestrian realm and abutting registered heritage properties by incorporating design solutions, such as stepbacks from the street wall and abutting registered heritage properties, modulation of building massing, and other methods of massing articulation using horizontal or vertical recesses or projections, datum lines, and changes in material, texture or colour to help reduce the apparent scale; 66 Heritage Trust (2021) Heritage Trust also argued that the design offended: Peninsula North Secondary Planning Strategy Policies 9.3.2.1 (a) and (c): 9.3.2.1 In considering [heritage development agreements] pursuant to Policy 9.3.2, Council shall consider the following: (a) the building or addition shall complement adjacent properties and uses, particularly any registered heritage buildings; … (c) the new development shall complement or maintain the existing heritage streetscape of Brunswick Street, by ensuring that features, including but not limited to the following, are similar to adjacent residential buildings particularly any registered heritag e properties in the area identified in the land use by-law pursuant to Policy 9.3 above, on which Council shall specify conditions to be met in the development agreement: (i) architectural design including forms such as roofs, entrances, porches and dormers; (ii) height, scale and massing; (iii) location and style of building details such as doors, windows and exterior walls; (iv) front and side yard setbacks; (v) building materials. 67 Heritage Trust (2021) Discussions around the “character” of the neighbourhood largely revolved around St. Patrick’s Church (2267 Brunswick Street ) and Huestis House (2273-75 Brunswick Street Concern that the new development would overwhelm St. Patrick’s Rectory (on subject site, remaining) Huestis House and subject site are not technically abutting UARB Standard of review: did the decision of the Halifax and West Community Council fail to reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy? Regional MPS, Halifax MPS and Peninsula North SPS When a court hears what the legislation terms an “appeal” from an administrative decision, the court applies the appellate standard of review, meaning correctness to issues of law. 68 Heritage Trust (2021) Counsel for Heritage Trust makes a forceful submission that the Council’s approval offends the unequivocal language of the Policies. I have to disagree. The bare words of Policies CH-16 and 9.3.2.1 do not illuminate a linear path to a distinct outcome. They leave the Council, Municipality and developer with work to do. They contemplate Council will consider the overlapping planning perspectives, weigh a range of solutions, make value judgments, perhaps remit the negotiation to the Municipality for amendment and, if feasible, find an appropriate balance for a development agreement but, if not feasible after a reasonable application of the policies’ criteria, refuse the development agreement. 69 Heritage Trust (2021) UARB’s role is not to “micro-manage a de novo planning assessment” Entire four-year application timeline under review, not only Halifax and West Community Council’s reasoning and ultimate decision: “The revisions from the development’s initial design to the final approved development agreement evidence Council’s “consideration” of the heritage criteria in the municipal planning strategy.” (para. 30) 70 Heritage Trust (2021) Primary objection is that the new development would be too tall to complement St. Patrick’s Church and Huestis House Huestis House and St. Patrick’s Church have different appearances, structures and uses – no one structure can complement both Appeal dismissed – decision of Council upheld 71 Questions? 72 Advice for reading the Annapolis case First class after the break It’s 95 pages - SCC decisions have a good headnote (summary at the beginning of the case) – start with this Don’t get lost - majority decision is written by Wagner, Moldaver, Cote, Brown and Rowe Dissent is written by Karakatansis, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal You don’t need to read the dissent (but feel free if you are interested) 73 PLAN 4035/5035 End of Week 5 6 February 2025 74

Plan 4035/5035 - Application of Planning Law PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript