Barristers & Solicitors*

Menu

Zoning By-law Amendments

  1. 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):



  2. Thompson v. Ministry of Natural Resources

    Location:

    Northern Ontario


    Subject:

    Aggregate Extraction, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This prehearing conference dealt with a proposal to build a quarry in the Township of Ryerson. He had made a two-pronged application – one under the Planning Act for rezoning, and another under the Aggregates Resources Act for a Class A quarry licence. The Township Council agreed to rezone, though conditionally. There were appeals of that Zoning By-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. There was also a referral by the Minister of Natural Resources, to the Board, of the licence matter under the Aggregates Resources Act. Issues include traffic/haul route, environmental concerns, compatibility, hydrogeology work, blasting, property values, and the special zoning provisions.


    Held:

    Hearing is set for future date


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



  3. 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):



  4. 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):



  5. Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation v. City of Owen Sound

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    In March 2012, Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation applied for an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law 2010-78. The intent was to increase the permitted Gross Floor Area and to relax or eliminate the Gross Floor Area and unit size restrictions, so as to facilitate a new retail development. However, City Council refused the application, with concerns about potential market impact. The Applicants appealed to the Board. However, after a series of pre-hearing conferences, the Applicants and the City agreed on modifications to the application as well as a draft Zoning By-law.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The parties were able to agree on a new draft Zoning By-law, which formed part of their settlement. The Board also considered the opinion of expert planner Wendy Nott, who stated, “the settlement is appropriate, in conformance with applicable policy, and represents good land-use planning in the public interest.” The Board found no reason to disagree.


    Document(s):



  6. 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):



  7. 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):



  8. 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):



  9. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Still’s Bay Landing Corporation applied to amend the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87 in order to increase the size of the marina from 38 to 50 slips. The council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes denied the request. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation appealed its denial to the Board. The subject lands are designated “Waterfront” in both the Regional Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan and the Township Official Plan. The property in question is zoned Waterfront Commercial (WC2) in the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87. The By-law limits the dock length to 80 feet and the width to 25% of the lot frontage. The Appellant/Applicant originally applied for a dock length of 150 feet and width of 75.6% and a side lot setback of two feet where the By-law requires 30 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that there are problems with the existing use of the marina. It also accepts that marina operations such as this are necessary to the development of recreational tourism and cottage development. The Provincial Policy Statement, and both Official Plans provide for recreational and cottage development that is a major component of the local economy. The Board finds that the zoning amendment presented before the board is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plans and represents good planning.


    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