Michael Davis

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a seasonal rural wedding and event venue on their property, located in a Prime Agricultural Area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed non-agricultural use was limited in scale, complied with minimum distance separation formulae, and maintained the general intent of the agricultural designation.

The Tribunal also accepted expert evidence that the site could accommodate appropriate on-site servicing and that the proposed parking standard was reasonable.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of their minor variance application to permit the construction of a detached accessory building containing two additional residential units.

The subject property had a unique configuration where the functional rear yard was technically classified as the front yard under the zoning by-law, necessitating variances for location and setback.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent 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 allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance and the refusal of a development permit to replace an existing deck with a larger, engineered deck located at a 0m setback within a dynamic beach hazard area on Lake Huron.

The appellants argued that existing timber cribs mitigated the dynamic beach processes, making the development safe.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, or local planning policies, which strictly prohibit new development in dynamic beach hazard areas regardless of existing shoreline protection.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to reduce the minimum front yard depth from 8.0 metres to 3.7 metres.

The variance was sought to permit the construction of an enclosed outdoor patio for an existing restaurant.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the enclosure would improve the site, reduce noise, and meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property into two lots.

The proposed lots required relief for minimum lot width and area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposal represented compatible residential infill that conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeals were allowed, the variances authorized, and provisional consent granted.