Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Greater Golden Horseshoe

  1. Town of Shelburne and Ice River Springs Water Co. Inc. v. Township of Amaranth

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant applied for and was granted approval of the creation of two one hectare lots in the northern portion of the property, in the Township of Amaranth. These two lots front on a County Road which separates the Township of Amaranth from the Town of Shelburne, directly across from the Shelburne Industrial Park. They are also adjacent to a wetland, floodplain and a water feature and within a large area identified as a Significant Habitat. Council’s decision was appealed by the Appellants to the Ontario Municipal Board.


    Held:

    Consent for the Severances is denied and the appeals are allowed.


    Reasons:

    The Official Plan states: “Proposals for new development shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent land uses include noise, odour, dust, traffic…”. The Board did not find that the existing and future industry are compatible with the proposed lots and the consents do not adhere to land use compatibility. Natural Heritage and Significant Habitat: The language and requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment is clear and mandatory. No such assessment was completed in this case. Growth Management: With respect to Rural Lands, limited residential development is to occur. The Official Plan includes criteria for a specific number of lots to be created on an annual basis, and these applications do not conform strictly to those numbers.


    Document(s):



  2. Bayou Cable Park v. Township of Amaranth and Amaranth Alliance for Rural Preservation Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Recreational Development, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is an appeal by Bayou Cable Park Inc. and the owner Brennan Grange from the refusal by the Township of Amaranth of his request for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent to sever for the purposes of establishing a wakeboard facility on his property on 20 sideroad. The appeal also includes the failure to make a decision on the site plan application. The proposal is to sever and rezone the western portion of the property that contains a lake from Rural to Recreational to permit the commercial wakeboarding operation and to retain the eastern portion of the property where the Appellant has his home, a single detached residential dwelling and accessory building. Issues raised included the interpretation of minimum distance separation (MDS) policies, noise levels, and general compatibility in the rural area.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the day to day activities and special events is not a passive recreational activity, as there are 300 people expected to attend and where there will be a PA system. An active recreational use is not compatible with the surrounding rural and agricultural uses, and as such, is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Growth Plan or the Official Plan. The Board also finds that the proposed use exceeds the scale and intensity intended by the Official Plan for a passive recreational use. Further, the proposed consent does not conform to the Township Official Plan due to the incompatibility of use on the retained and severed lands with respect to noise; it is not good planning to approve a consent and use that will lead to future incompatibility; and finally, the consent is premature and not in the public interest.


    Document(s):



  3. 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):



  4. Simcoe (County) v. Innisfil (Town)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Commercial Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants own and operate Lake Simcoe Marina and currently operate a year round commercial boat storage business on the subject lands that is related to their Lake Simcoe Marina business. By-law 106-12 seeks to regularize commercial boat storage on the subject lands. The By-law applies to a portion of the lands within the Agriculture designation. The By-law does not permit commercial boat storage on any lands designated Natural Environment. The Town adopted the By-law to permit commercial boat storage on the lands currently designated and zoned Agricultural. The County appealed the matter to the Board. The principal issue before the Board is whether the commercial boat storage is a secondary agricultural use, as set out in the Town’s Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed and by-law is repealed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the Official Plan clearly requires the use to be both secondary and agricultural. Regardless of whether one considers the commercial boat storage to be secondary to the livestock operation, no amount of skilful interpretation results in the conclusion that commercial boat storage is an agricultural use. The commercial boat storage is unrelated to an agricultural use on the subject lands. The evidence before the Board is clear that the commercial boat storage is related to the marina business owned by the Applicants and operated several kilometres away from the subject lands. The Board concludes that Town of Innisfil By-law No. 106-12 which permits commercial boat storage on the subject lands does not conform to the Town Official Plan and, as such, does not conform to the County Official Plan, does not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.


    Document(s):



  5. Hamilton v. Correia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Costs, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Joseph Hamilton seeks costs against Richard Correia arising from a hearing in which Mr. Correia appealed against a severance granted to Mr. Hamilton by the Committee of Adjustment for a property in the Town of Wasaga Beach. In a decision issued on May 28, 2013, the Board found in favour of Mr. Hamilton. The amount Mr. Hamilton is seeking is not stated directly in his Motion, but his counsel indicates in accompanying documentation that Mr. Hamilton claims is $8,241.57 in legal and planning expenses.


    Held:

    Motion for costs dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board’s rules do not provide leeway to award costs when a party’s conduct has been found to be reasonable, but resulted in “inconvenience and financial loss for other parties.” Further, an appellant is under no obligation to provide expert witnesses. Failure to present evidence can be considered to constitute frivolous or vexatious behaviour and worthy of the awarding of costs, but does not apply in this case.


    Document(s):



  6. 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):



  7. St. John’s Evangelical Latvian Lutheran Church v. Township of Essa

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    St. John’s appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing provisional consent to sever one new lot of approximately 7 hectare from a total land parcel of approximately 28 ha at the subject property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the application conforms to the County Official Plan and the OP, and complies with all applicable provisions of the ZBL. The Board also stated that the Provincial Policy Statement clearly outlined that severance of the lots comprises development and therefore, provisional consent is possible, but only if the conditions proposed by the NVCA and Township are met.


    Document(s):



  8. 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):



  9. Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd. V. Israel

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd. has appealed a decision of the Town of Oakville, which authorized a variance from the provisions of the Town’s zoning by-law to permit the development of a pool by the applicants with a reduced rear yard setback.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variance, as amended, meets the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. There has been regard to matters of provincial interest, as required under S. 2 of the Act, the decision is consistent with applicable policy statements and conforms with provincial plans, as required under ss. 3(5)(a) and (b) of the Act.


    Document(s):



  10. Smejkal v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a telephone conference settlement hearing with respect to appeals by Robert and Leslie Smejkal of the decisions by the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment to grant provisional consent, subject to conditions, and to authorize minor variances for the subject property. In 2009, the Applicants filed applications for consent to sever and permit minor variances for both Lots, in order to permit the construction of a single detached residential dwelling on part of the first Lot, and to recognize a legal off-street parking space for the existing single detached dwelling on the second Lot.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot line adjustment (severance) implements the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Guelph Official Plan, and represents good planning. The proposed variances conform to the overall goals of the Official Plan and maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, will not result in the creation of adverse impacts, and are minor in nature. The Board further finds that these planning applications, subject to the conditions of the proposed Settlement, satisfy the criteria set out in subsections 51(24) and 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  11. Whiteley v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The City of Guelph passed Zoning By-law 2010-19022 to permit a residential condominium townhouse development in Guelph. Whiteley appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment to the Board. The Applicant seeks approval for 45 dwelling units including the existing single, 28 cluster townhouses and 16 multiple attached dwellings on the eastern portion of the site, east of a union gas easement and adjacent to the open space valley lands. The Appellant questions the safety, visual impact and environmental aspects of the development.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The appeal is dismissed as to By-law 19022 based upon the reasons he advanced above and the findings of the Board. By-law 19022 is found to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City of Guelph Official Plan in effect. By-law 19022 represents good planning and is in the public interest. There is appropriate regard for the Provincial interests in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the protection of ecological systems.


    Document(s):



  12. Demczur v. Town of Orangeville

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal the granting of a minor variance by the Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Orangeville from the provisions of Zoning By-law 22-90.This By-law requires a minimum yard setback of 1.5 metres and an encroachment of up to 0.7 metres into the side yard for stairs and other structures provided a setback of a minimum of 0.6 metres is maintained.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed (variance not authorized)


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the construction on the subject property does not adhere to the rules and measurements of the Zoning By-law and is therefore contrary to both the provisions and the general intent and purpose of the By-law. Further, it fails three of the four tests required in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and therefore is not desirable for the appropriate development, as it has an adverse impact on the Demczur property and is not minor.


    Document(s):



  13. Reid Uptown Homes v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Reid’s Uptown Homes has appealed the decision of the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment refusing its application for a total of nine minor variances from the provisions of the City of Guelph Zoning By-law 14864 to permit construction of its proposed 118 residential units. The proposal was supported by the City of Guelph but opposed by an unincorporated group comprising some 40 local residents calling themselves the “By-the-Law Coalition.” Three individuals represented the Coalition at the hearing.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variances satisfy the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. They conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, which in this case is Official Plan Amendment 39 to make more efficient use of land as required by the Growth Plan. As well, the proposed density conforms to the policies for Greenfield Areas. They also conform to the general intent of the By-law, which permits stacked townhouses. Finally, because there is no foreseeable adverse impact on the surrounding properties and because the variances are themselves numerically slight and, from a land use planning point of view, inconsequential, the test of minor is met.


    Document(s):



  14. Rowan v. Town of Erin

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant/Applicant owns property approximately 40.9 hectares and is zoned agricultural and environmental protection. She seeks to sever a 1.1 hectare parcel with the intention of creating a new residential lot. The County’s Land Division Committee refused her severance application and the matter is now before the Board on appeal. The Town’s planning staff reviewed the severance application and did not support the proposed severance.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds the evidence of the Town’s planner to be uncontroverted and unchallenged. The Appellant/Applicant’s evidence was the only planning evidence given at the hearing and the Board accepts her evidence. While the Board may be sympathetic to the reasons given by the Applicant in seeking the severance, financial security is not planning evidence. The Board is required to decide on the planning merits of an appeal before it. Further, the agricultural severance policies of the county and the Town’s Official Plan also address new residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas and the conditions upon which they will be allowed. The Applicant’s proposal does not meet these criteria nor does it appropriately address the criteria found in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  15. The Corporation of the Town of Markham v. Gordon

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Leave to Appeal, Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice


    Application/issue:

    Town of Markham seeks leave to appeal to the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to the Divisional Court. Ms. Gordon was successful in her appeal before the Board to demolish an existing building and garage and construct a new gothic revival brick two-storey dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The Town argues that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s position on the question of the law.


    Held:

    Leave to appeal denied


    Reasons:

    The Court is not satisfied that it is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Court. Further, the Court cannot conclude that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s decision, even if it were determined that a question of law was involved. The applicant has failed to satisfy the Court that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision for which leave is sought.


    Document(s):



  16. Town of Markham v. Gordon

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and detached garage to construct a new two-storey dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The appellant submitted a Demolition Permit application, a Minor Variance application for three variances and a Site Plan Control application, however was denied by the Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Markham. These decisions were appealed and consolidated for this hearing.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the demolition conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as well as the York Regional Official Plan and the Town of Markham Official Plan and the Thornhill Secondary Plan. Further, the variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law by allowing the construction of a two-storey dwelling in an R2 Zone. As such, the variances also meet the four statutory tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  17. Gordon v. Town of Markham

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation, Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant/Appellant submitted a Demolition Permit application, a minor variance application for three variances and a Site Plan Control application. The Town of Markham refused the demolition permit for the property. Later, the Committee of Adjustment approved one of the three variances regarding lot frontage, but refused a building height variance and depth variance, followed by the refusal of the Site Plan Control application. All decisions were appealed and consolidated for the hearing.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the subject property is was assigned the lowest classification category, a Class C, in the 2007 Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District Plan and therefore does not find this modest dwelling to be a significant building. Further, the Board finds that the demolition of this dwelling conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe with respect to conservation of significant heritage resources. Based on the evidence, the variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  18. 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):



  19. City of Cambridge v. Flag Raiders Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A request to amend Zoning By-law 150-85 in the form of a Temporary Use By-law to permit the continued use of the site for the purpose of operating commercial/recreational establishment (outdoor paintball) for a period of three years. The application was denied by the Council of the City of Cambridge and the applicant/appellant appealed Council’s decision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that the use for the site is not in accordance with either the Official Plan or the Regional Planning Policies. However, the Board concludes that the extension of the current Temporary Use By-law is only for three months and the Board has no desire to close down Flag Raiders Inc. immediately when there is a possibility of it relocating in the near future.


    Document(s):



  20. Ruscica v. Town of Markham

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicant/Appellant is seeking relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2237, as amended, to permit the construction of a two-storey dwelling. The following variances are sought: a side yard setback of 1.2 metres whereas the minimum is 1.8; a building depth of 22.93 metres whereas the maximum is 16.8; and a floor area ratio of 58.6% whereas the maximum is 50%.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law; they are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands; they are minor in nature; and they meet the four tests for a minor variance as set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):