Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the OMB’s decision to uphold the moratorium on country lot estate applications. The 10-page decision, dated June 28, 2012, is attached (1.5 MB).
Formally, this decision only grants leave to appeal the OMB Decision of November 25, 2011. In doing so, however, it rather severely criticizes the Board’s basis for approving the moratorium, including it calling the measure a “pause.” “It is highly debatable,” the Judge says, “that a moratorium on land development for five years, particularly without assurances that future development will be permitted, would ordinarily be described as a ‘pause.'” And further: “It is not implausible to conclude that even if moratoriums could be imposed as measures to support the objectives in an official plan, a term of five years would be considered excessive, bearing in mind the specific limitations on similar measures contained in s. 38 [of the Planning Act].” (Section 38 is about interim control by-laws, which can be in effect for a maximum of two years.)
The City had an articling intern represent its interests.
E.D.
16 July 2012
Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the OMB’s decision to uphold the moratorium on country lot estate applications. The 10-page decision, dated June 28, 2012, is attached (1.5 MB).
Formally, this decision only grants leave to appeal the OMB Decision of November 25, 2011. In doing so, however, it rather severely criticizes the Board’s basis for approving the moratorium, including it calling the measure a “pause.” “It is highly debatable,” the Judge says, “that a moratorium on land development for five years, particularly without assurances that future development will be permitted, would ordinarily be described as a ‘pause.'” And further: “It is not implausible to conclude that even if moratoriums could be imposed as measures to support the objectives in an official plan, a term of five years would be considered excessive, bearing in mind the specific limitations on similar measures contained in s. 38 [of the Planning Act].” (Section 38 is about interim control by-laws, which can be in effect for a maximum of two years.)
The City had an articling intern represent its interests.
E.D.
16 July 2012