Barristers & Solicitors*

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):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

© 2019 Elston Watt Barristers & Solicitors*. All rights reserved.

 

*Practicing in association