Legal Non-Conforming Land Use

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

58 (1) An upper-tier municipality has, in respect of land lying within 45 metres from any limit of an upper-tier highway, all the powers conferred on a local municipality under section 34 of the Planning Act for prohibiting the erecting or locating of buildings and other structures within that area. 2001, c. 25, s. 58 (1).

(2) If there is a conflict between a by-law passed by an upper-tier municipality under subsection (1) and a by-law passed by a lower-tier municipality under section 34 of the Planning Act, the by-law of the upper-tier municipality prevails to the extent of the conflict, but in all other respects the by-law passed by the lower-tier municipality remains in effect. 2001, c. 25, s. 58 (2).

Boyce v Norfolk (County), 2018 CanLII 35095 (ON LPAT)

[9] Starting at Highway 59 and moving westerly along Hastings Drive, on that eastern portion of Registered Plan 206, there are lakefront cottages: about 14 or so on the south side of Hastings Drive, and about 5 on the north side of Hastings Drive, (not part of the Subject Lands).

[10] Commencing at Lots 66 and 67 on Registered Plan 206, the lots appear to be entirely water lots, as do Lots 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 251.

[11] Lots 3 to 17 are partial water lots, vacant and owned by the County. One encounters the first cottage owned by Ellen Boyce at Lots 18 and 19, then at Lots 29 and 30 there is the cottage owned by Suzanne Boyce, and then it is at or about Lots 79 and 80 where there are a number of cottages in a row. Commencing at about Lot 94 through to Lot 120, the lots are vacant and owned by the County. At Lot 121, there appears to be a cottage, and at Lot 125 there appears to be another cottage, with the last cottage being at Lot 143. In total, the Tribunal is advised that there are 24 private cottages, all of which are on the south side of Hastings Drive, 47 vacant lots owned by Norfolk County, and the remaining vacant lots (about 75) are in private ownership.

[32] As noted above, the County undertook a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review which led to the adoption of its new CZB. The CZB replaced the four former zoning by-laws with one new County-wide CZB.

[33] The 1985 zoning for Hastings Drive (By-law 1-NO-85) was retained in order to undertake the Hastings Drive Zoning Study (including the Subject Lands).

[34] The Hastings Drive Zoning Study was carried out by MHBC Planning and Mr. Chauvin was the lead planner.