3 total
Appeals for consent and minor variance dismissed due to insufficient buildable area and non-conformity with Official Plans.
The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a rural lot into two lots and reduce the minimum lot frontage.
The appellant's planner argued the proposal represented reasonable intensification and conformed to the Official Plans.
The Town's experts testified that the site contained wetlands, lacked sufficient buildable area for dwellings and private septic systems, and did not meet the Official Plan's rural cluster policies.
The Tribunal preferred the Town's evidence, finding the proposal did not conform to the Official Plans, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and lacked sufficient room for development.
The appeals were dismissed.
Zoning by-law amendment appeal dismissed; proposed water access deemed inadequate for emergency services and construction.
The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone their vacant property from Residential Rural (RR-5) to Residential Waterfront (RW-6) to facilitate the development of a dwelling.
The proposed rezoning required demonstrating appropriate water access on a navigable waterway, as the property lacked frontage on a year-round maintained public road.
The Tribunal found that the proposed access via a legacy bridge or a neighbour's property was inadequate for construction materials and emergency services.
Accepting the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Official Plan.
Zoning by-law amendment for boathouse deck upheld; appeal dismissed as proposal conforms to planning policies.
The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted the redevelopment of an abutting boathouse.
The amendment allowed for an increased lot coverage and a reduced front yard setback to facilitate the construction of an at-grade deck.
The appellant argued the amendment would facilitate an illegal roof-top patio use and lacked necessary municipal servicing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the at-grade deck did not constitute a new use requiring municipal services, and that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.