Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Residential Development

  1. Curtis v. Town of The Blue Mountains

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants applied for and were granted a consent to sever their lands. The proposal was to create a new 576 square metre vacant residential lot with a retained lot of 3,091 square metres. A neighbour appealed the decision on the basis that the consent does not conform to the Town’s Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal is dismissed.


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the evidence supports the granting of a provisional consent, with conditions, for a new lot as requested. The Board finds that the proposal complies with the Town’s Official Plan policies, as laid out in the evidence. The Board finds that the PPS, the County Official Plan and the Town Official Plan all encourage growth in primary settlement areas through intensification and infilling, such as this proposal.


    Document(s):



  2. 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):



  3. Jones v. Township of Seguin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal by the Applicant was made against the failure of the Committee of Adjustment of the Township of Seguin to approve an application for three new lots and against the approval by the Township of Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 with regard to a waterfront property at 189 Isabella Lake. The proposal was to create three parcels from the subject property which will divide the property into four seasonal residential lots with frontage on Lake Isabella. Issues included access on a private road and recreational carrying capacity.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed.


    Reasons:

    The Board made a finding that the Clergy Principle, modified by James Dick, required that the applications would be tested against the policies in force at the time of application, and that while subsequent policies could be considered, they would not be determinative. The Board concluded that the consent applications do not conform to the Official Plan and they do not have appropriate regard for s. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Approval of the application would be contrary to the intent of the Official Plan to limit development of waterfront areas on Lake Isabella. The Official Plan policies with regard to access were not achieved because access would be provided on a private road over which a proper registered right of way does not exist. With regard to the zoning appeal, the Board found that it is appropriate to place the lands into the Limited Service Residential zone, where land is not accessed by a public road.


    Document(s):



  4. Chiu v. City of Toronto (Committee of Adjustment)

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants wish to construct a new two-storey dwelling on the subject property. They applied for and received authorization from the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee’s decision was appealed by Carolyn Koziskie and Lucinda Chiu, who are abutting owners to the north and east respectively. The Applicants and the Appellant, Carolyn Koziskie settled their differences and the application was being amended to reflect the agreement reached between them.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part.


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the four tests. The intent of the Official Plan is met, and the proposed variances will result in a dwelling that respects and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood. The intent of the zoning by-law is maintained, and the authorization of these variances will have less of an impact than potential “as of right” development concepts. The variances are minor both by order of magnitude and will not cause any adverse impact on anyone. The Appellants are concerned about impact on their existing view, and it is well settled law that there is no right to the protection of a view in Ontario. Authorization of these variances will allow the construction of a dwelling meeting modern needs of creative design that will maintain the high quality of the neighbourhood.


    Document(s):



  5. Town of Bracebridge v. Bakema (Little Europe Resort)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Town of Bracebridge passed a comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2006-120, for which there was a site-specific appeal filed by the Little Europe Resort. The Board authorized a zoning change to CT-9H subject to the provision that a site plan agreement be entered into. The Town in its motion to the Board is requesting that the Board issue its final Order without a site plan agreement.


    Held:

    Motion allowed, final Order issued


    Reasons:

    Roelf Bakema was agreeable to the change and none of the other original appellants appeared at the hearing. The Board grants the motion by the Town of Bracebridge based upon the uncontested affidavit evidence of Matthew Holmes and the Board will issue its final Order with respect to By-law No. 2006-120.


    Document(s):



  6. 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):



  7. Robertson v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Accessory Dwelling Units, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Caroline Robertson and Jill Popkey (Applicants/Appellants) have appealed from the refusal of the Council of the Town of Bracebridge to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject property. The property is designated Residential by the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan and zoned Residential Type 1 by Zoning By-law No. 2006-120. The purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-law is to rezone the subject property to Residential Type 1 – Special 56 in order to permit all uses in the R1 Zone including one accessory apartment dwelling unit. The current application results from a complaint by a local resident who suspected that this location contained multiple dwellings. As a result, the Building Department directed the owners to either comply with the permitted use or to apply for permission to allow an accessory apartment unit.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board, in having reviewed and considered the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and the submissions of counsel, finds that the rezoning proposal fails to conform to the spirit and intent of certain policies of the Official Plan. More importantly, the Board is not convinced that the proposal is consistent with the principles of good land use planning, nor can it be seen to have sufficient regard for the public safety and interest. The Board’s view, by virtue of the shape and dimensions of the subject property along with the existing zoning standard deficiencies, permitting a second living/dwelling unit at this location is not conducive to the principles of good planning.


    Document(s):



  8. Craig Mills v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board for minor variance to permit height of 26.5 ft. of an accessory structure (garage) whereas the maximum permitted height is 20.0 ft. pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    A mediation process was held in which both parties agreed that the Applicant would not use the garage as a sleeping cabin or for habitable space. In addition, there were no other negative impacts from the variance and the Township’s Director of Planning concluded that the variance was minor. Therefore, the Board allowed the variance.


    Document(s):



  9. Durfy v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal an application for a minor variance to increase permitted lot coverage from 10% to 14.1% of the lot and 14.3% of the lot within 200 feet of the high water mark. The subject property is designated “Waterfront” and zoned WR1 in Zoning By-law No. 87-87.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the modest addition to the cottage is far enough removed from the waterfront and buffered by trees to have minimal impact on the views from the lake. The addition meets the general intent of the zoning by-law because it is hidden from view, does not interfere with development of abutting property and is not any more of a precedent than that of the abutting lands.


    Document(s):



  10. Sherman v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal of the refusal to pass an amendment to the Zoning By-law No. 87-87 to allow variances to a cottage dwelling. The variance are lot coverage of 13.5% rather than maximum 10%; a setback of 44 ft. from water’s edge rather than required 45 ft.; and a landing are of 60 sq. ft. from the required front yard setbacks, whereas s. 3.1.2.b.ii) for the By-law permits 50 sq. ft.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there are no matters of Provincial interest affected by this application and it is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the District of Muskoka OP. The OP through a rigorous set of policies does allow for the consideration of exemptions in specific cases subject to a review of criteria set out in s. F.1.6 By-law Administration and policies found in s. B “Waterfront.” There would be no cumulative impacts on this or other lands in the immediate area and to the shoreline.


    Document(s):



  11. Sculati v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal against a decision of the Township of Muskoka Lakes approving By-law Amendment No. 2012-15 with provisions requiring a proposed dwelling to have a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet and limiting the size of the dwelling to a maximum of 4700 square feet for the subject property. The purpose of the appeal is to obtain relief from the two above-noted provisions. The subject property is a waterfront lot that previously had been two separate lots, which now have been merged and contains two cottages.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    In consideration of the evidence and factors presented before the Board, including the opinion of the Planner, the Board finds that the revised By-law 2012-15 is appropriate and it should be approved. He indicated that revised By-law 2012-15 raises no issues with regard to the Provincial Policy Statement; it conforms to the Township Official Plan and represents good planning.


    Document(s):



  12. 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):



  13. 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):



  14. 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):



  15. Moss v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal from a decision of the Town of Bracebridge to pass Zoning By-law Amendment 2011-011, which rezoned lands from R1-2 to R3-18. The purpose of the By-law Amendment is to allow for the construction of 40 townhouse units on a cul-de-sac and two semi-detached dwelling units along with parkland and a storm water management facility. Counsel for the applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, pursuant to subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the appellant’s reasons for appeal are not substantiated and therefore the Board concludes from the appellant’s submissions that there would be nothing that would allow the Board, in whole or in part, to allow all or part of her appeal. There is no compelling evidence that the Town of Bracebridge failed to give proper notice as prescribed by the Planning Act of the subject application and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2011-011, and therefore there are no technical grounds for appeal on that basis.


    Document(s):



  16. Northridge Home Ltd. v. Township of Georgian Bluffs

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters arising from the Township of Georgian Bluffs Council’s refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment application and draft Plan of Subdivision by Northridge Homes Ltd. for a residential development that is proposed to be on individual septic systems.


    Held:


    Reasons:

    The Parties agreed to approach the Board to explore resolution through mediation. Once this process is completed, the Parties are directed to contact the Board to set a further Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters and to set a date for the hearing.


    Document(s):



  17. 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):



  18. Colville-Reeves v. Jobin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A motion requesting to adjourn a hearing, which would allow the Moving Party sufficient time to measure certain elements along the shoreline of the Respondent’s lakefront property. This matter involved an appeal of a decision by the Town of Gravenhurst to amend Zoning By-law 95-54 to permit the construction of a 12.5 metre dock. The appellant states that the dock is a safety hazard to boaters as it is located in a “Narrow Waterway.”


    Held:

    Motion dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the accuracy of the measurements that they had received with the application for the building permit for the boathouse were satisfactory, and therefore the Moving Party will not be prejudiced if the hearing goes ahead as scheduled. Hearing is scheduled for one day only.


    Document(s):



  19. 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):



  20. Steel Crown Corporation v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal against the Township of Muskoka Lakes refusal to enact a proposed zoning amendment to Zoning By-law 87-87 to rezone lands from Waterfront Residential (WR1) to Waterfront Residential with a Special Exemption (WRS) to permit a cottage on a lot having less than the required frontage.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there would be some impact on the waters of Medora Lake from the proposed septic system as well as the fish habitat from shoreline activities. It also concludes that there would be impact on the privacy of the abutting property that would result from the reduced setback from the proposed dock. The Board accepts the evidence of the Township that this has not been a developable lot for over 40 years and the Township is concerned about the precedent-setting nature of the application.


    Document(s):