Darryl Tighe

The Township appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit residential development on a property partially zoned Hazard Land.

The applicant argued that the Hazard Land designation was a mapping error and could be corrected as a 'technical revision' under the Zoning By-law without a formal amendment.

The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed no actual hazard existed on the land, the required boundary adjustment was not a mere technical revision and would change the permitted uses on the property.

Therefore, a Zoning By-law Amendment was required, and the minor variance application failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a six-unit residential dwelling within an existing former motel building on a shoreline property.

The property was zoned Shoreline Residential, which permits only single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed multiple-unit residential use on rural lands outside a settlement area was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Township's planner, concluding that the proposal did not conform to the 'limited residential' policies of the County Official Plan or the waterfront policies of the Township Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Township of Minden Hills appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that resulted in the denial of a minor variance application due to a tie vote.

The applicants sought variances to permit the reconstruction of a dwelling, an extension to a waterfront deck, and the construction of a 1.5-storey garage on a waterfront property.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would recognize a waterfront parcel and a separate main parcel as one lot for planning purposes, and permit certain accessory structures on the waterfront lot.

The Tribunal found that the two parcels were functionally separated by 1.5 km of public road and could not be considered one lot.

The Tribunal allowed a dock, stairs, and landings as principal uses on the waterfront lot to provide lake access, provided that on-site parking could be accommodated, but prohibited a boathouse and sundeck to limit the intensity of use and avoid the need for an on-site septic system.

The appellant appealed the Township of Minden Hills Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for an adjacent waterfront property.

The applicant sought variances to permit increased lot coverage, reduced setbacks, and an expansion of an existing dwelling to construct a carport and an addition.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.