John Jardine

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing four minor variances required to construct a two-storey detached garage on their waterfront property.

The variances sought relief for slope setback, lot coverage, front lot line setback, and building height.

The municipality only opposed the height variance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized all four variances, finding that they met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner, concluding that the proposed garage would not negatively impact the natural landscape or create adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's Shoreline Preservation By-law, which introduced a 30-metre setback and natural vegetative buffer requirement around waterbodies to conform with the updated County Official Plan.

The appellant argued the by-law was overly prescriptive and unreasonably restricted land use.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County Official Plan, which explicitly requires a 30-metre setback and vegetative buffer to protect water quality and ecological functions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to add a definition of 'vegetative buffer' and a provision permitting minor maintenance and pruning, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, concluding the by-law represented good planning and appropriately balanced public environmental interests with private property rights.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot, requiring relief from setback requirements from the highwater mark and top of bank.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances with conditions, and the appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their minor variance application to construct a new dwelling larger than the legal non-conforming log cabin it replaced.

The property is zoned Environmental Protection and abuts a highly sensitive lake trout fishery at capacity for development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed expansion, without an Environmental Impact Study demonstrating no adverse impacts, is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and does not meet the test under s. 45(2) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.