Will Nywening

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the future severance of a surplus farm dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create a residential lot not associated with agricultural use in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the application failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation requirements, was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and did not conform to the County and Town Official Plans.

The appellants appealed the Municipality's denial of a consent application to sever a 2.8-hectare residential lot containing two dwellings from a 37.9-hectare farm parcel.

The appellants argued the dwellings were surplus to their farming operation following farm consolidation.

The Tribunal found the application premature under s. 51(24)(b) of the Planning Act because the property was subject to a site-specific zoning by-law prohibiting further severances, and no zoning by-law amendment application was before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also noted the severance would further reduce an already undersized agricultural parcel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of a three-storey triplex on a waterfront property in Grand Bend.

The municipality and a local community association opposed the development, arguing the building's scale and massing were excessively large and incompatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the unique characteristics of the large, dually-zoned lot made the proposed medium-density development an appropriate transition between nearby high-density and low-density uses, and that the design was compatible with the eclectic neighbourhood.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit an increased lot coverage for accessory buildings.

The applicants sought to retain both an existing small garage and a newly constructed large garage.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that retaining both buildings failed the four tests for a minor variance.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to authorize a minor variance recognizing a slight lot coverage overage for the new large garage alone, conditional on the removal of the small garage.