3 total
Appeal allowed and provisional consent granted for rural lot severance; Official Plan permitted five lots.
The applicants appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a 3.6-hectare rural lot from a 29-hectare parcel.
The municipality argued that the Official Plan permitted a maximum of four lots based on the original crown survey, which had already been reached, and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.
The Tribunal found that the Official Plan allowed for pro-rating up to permit five lots, and that evidence showed the legacy aggregate site had been rehabilitated.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, subsequently reopening the matter to attach appropriate conditions regarding entrance permits, parkland dedication, and letters of comfort for private services, while rejecting the municipality's request to require a zoning by-law amendment.
Consent application for rural lot severance granted; Official Plan permitted pro-rating up lot density.
The municipality argued that the maximum lot density of four lots, based on the original crown survey, had already been reached and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.
The Tribunal found that the Official Plan permitted pro-rating up to allow five lots, that the aggregate resources had been previously depleted and rehabilitated, and that the application was consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.
The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.
Appeal dismissed and minor variance authorized for reduced side yard setback for an accessory storage shed.
The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit an existing accessory storage shed to remain 3.09 metres from the interior lot line, whereas 15.2 metres is required.
The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.
The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.