Unauthorized fill on properties found to violate zoning and site-alteration by-laws

The Township of Uxbridge went to Court over unauthorized site alterations and contraventions of the zoning by-law concerning property use.  In one case, the alleged alterations had left half of the property unsuitable for agricultural purposes, with that land now being used to store vehicles, equipment and debris from an excavation and haulage business.  In the other case, the allegation was that fill was illegally deposited on a former farm field, converting the field into an "industrial soil screening and mixing operation".  The same respondents were connected to both properties.

The zoning for the properties was "Rural", which allowed for non-residential uses such as "conservation, forestry and reforestation" and "a farm or nursery farm and greenhouse associated therewith".  The evidence of the owner of the properties was that the first property was being used only for residential use and that the second property was being used for a "farm or nursery farm and greenhouse associated therewith".  The Court disagreed, finding that the uses of both properties fell outside of the permitted uses under the zoning by-law.  Storage of landscaping materials and equipment was not permitted as farming or nursery farming.  The Court also rejected the argument that the use of each property should be permitted as a "legal non-conforming use".

On the issue of illegal site alterations, the Court dismissed the Township's application with respect to the first property because it had insufficient evidence to show that any by-law was breached.  With respect to the second property, the Court found that the Township had proven that more than 1,000 cubic metres of soil products were stored on the property in breach of the site alteration by-law.  The Court commented on the evidence:

"However, I do not accept that this is the extent of the soil material on the [G] property.  It is suspicious, to say the least, that [T] first indicated that he was unsure how much soil had been brought onto the property and placed in the "illegally filled area".  He then indicated that it was 240 truckloads, and only after hearing that an amount in excess of 1,000 cubic metres would require Council's approval of the permit, did he revise his application to indicate 880 cubic metres."

Based on its rulings on the zoning by-law infractions and the illegal site alteration, the Court made several injunctive orders restraining the respondents from continuing their illegal uses of the properties.

Read the decision at: The Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge v. Talbot.

Injunction granted against importation of fill for "farm practices"

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice begins with the following question: "Is it normal farming practice to alter the topography of lands by the depositing of large quantities of fill?".  A couple had purchased a 108-acre property on the Oak Ridges Moraine through a holding company and submitted to the local municipality a fill permit application to deposit 300,000 cubic metres of fill on the property (approximately 30,000 dump truck loads).  The municipality eventually brought a motion for injunctive relief to stop the unauthorized deposit of fill on the property.

According to the owners, the purpose of the fill was for the purposes of enhancing their ability to farm the property.  This was the position they took in response to the municipality's injunction application. Yet, in an affidavit sworn by the wife in support of an earlier application by the owners to quash a municipal by-law, it was stated that, "we were interested in purchasing the property for the purposes of using it as a "fill site" for clean fill".  The Court noted that in none of the owners' materials in the first application was there mention of any intention to use the property for farming.

In November, 2010, the municipality became aware that the owners were depositing more fill onto the property than was permitted by the applicable by-law.  The municipality issued a compliance order, but the deposits of fill continued.  The Court found that the owners did not comply with any of the orders issued by the municipality.  It also ruled that:

Based on the evidence that was placed before this court I am not satisfied that the depositing of the quantity of fill that has been observed, and specifically the intent of the respondents to ultimately deposit upwards of 30,000 truckloads of fill, in any way remotely resembles a normal farming operation.

The owners had argued that their operation was protected by the normal farm practices legislation.

The Court issued a permanent injunction against the owners restraining them from performing any further site alterations on their property and specifically restraining them from depositing any further fill or altering the grade of the property other than as permitted by a building permit, an agreement with the municipality and the site by-law.

Read the decision at: Township of Uxbridge v. Corbar Holdings Inc. et al.