Jonathan Sasso

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area and frontage on lands designated as prime agricultural and within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant sought to sever a parcel containing an accessory agricultural dwelling from the retained parcel containing the primary dwelling and agricultural operations.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance would inappropriately fragment agricultural lands and that the accessory dwelling could not be legally separated from the principal agricultural use under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan to permit a mixed-use development consisting of townhouse blocks and a commercial building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order until the final forms are submitted.

The applicant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for minor variances and consent to sever a vacant corner lot to create two residential lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed infill development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, concluding that the proposed lots and dwellings are compatible with the character of the established neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to permit the construction of an accessory covered patio and outdoor swimming pool.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with revised variances and conditions.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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