Gaspare Ritacca

The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variances to permit changes to an approved development, including an additional storey and increased commercial floor space.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, focusing on whether the variances were minor in nature.

Preferring the Township's holistic approach, the Tribunal found that the requested variances would cause stark differences in building design, disturb the character of the development, and result in a building that feels noticeably out of place.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying their application under s. 45(2)(b) of the Planning Act to permit a dog food production facility on their property.

The property was zoned Rural General, which permitted kennels and accessory uses.

The Tribunal found that the dog food processing business, which supplied internet customers and retail stores, was an independent use and not accessory to the kennel.

The Tribunal also held that s. 45(2)(b) did not apply because the zoning by-law defined kennel and accessory uses specifically, not in general terms.

The appeal was dismissed.