Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 18, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000644

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Arjang and Carol Yazdani

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit an additional residential unit within an accessory building located in the front yard of the property

Reference Number: OPA 64

Property Address: 2312 Sunningdale Road

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex County

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000644

OLT Case Name: Arjang and Carol Yazdani v. Municipality of Middlesex Centre

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Arjang and Carol Yazdani

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit an additional residential unit within an accessory building located in the front yard of the property

Reference Number: ZBA-2-2024

Property Address: 2312 Sunningdale Road

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex County

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000645

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000644

OLT Case Name: Arjang and Carol Yazdani v. Municipality of Middlesex Centre

Heard: March 24, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Arjang and Carol Yazdani (“Appellant”)	Analee Baroudi
Municipality of Middlesex Centre (“Municipality”)	Alex Ciccone

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, brought by the Appellant, regarding the refusal of the Municipality’s Council of the application for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (“Applications”) to permit an additional residential unit within an accessory building located on the lands municipally known as 2312 Sunningdale Road West (“Subject Lands”).

2The first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was conducted on August 1, 2024, and the second CMC was scheduled on October 4, 2024, which was adjourned at the request of Parties. This Hearing was scheduled to hear the merits for the Applications in the absence of the second CMC.

CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands are located on the north side of Sunningdale Road West, just east of Denfield Road and have an area of approximately 18.2 hectares (45 acres) with a frontage of approximately 206 metres (“m”) on Sunningdale Road West.

4The Subject Lands contain a new single detached dwelling and a 45-year-old, two-storey building that was formerly the principal residence of the property.

5The rear of the Subject Lands contains a Significant Woodland, which is part of the Natural Heritage system, and an area regulated by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority due to the presence of a wetland feature and its 30 m surrounding area of interference. In addition to the residential dwellings and the woodland, the Subject Lands include agricultural uses containing cultivation and horticulture activities. A small flower farm is currently operated on the Subject Lands.

6The Subject Lands are predominantly surrounded by agricultural lands with rural residential uses. The Natural Heritage System surrounds the Subject Lands to the north, west and south, and agricultural lands within the City of London are located to the east.

7The Municipality Official Plan (“OP”) designates the Subject Lands “Agriculture” and identifies the location and details of the Significant Woodland on the Subject Lands.

8The Subject Lands are currently zoned “Agricultural (A1)(t-1)” in the Municipality’s Zoning By-law No.2005-005 (“ZBL”), which was approved to be in effect in 2021 for a period of three years or until the new dwelling was completed, whichever was lesser. Upon the expiration of the temporary use zone or completion of the new dwelling, the Appellant was required to remove the former principal residence or convert it into an agricultural building with respect to the Temporary Use Agreement. The expiration date is July 14, 2024, and the new principal dwelling was granted an occupancy permit in November 2023.

9The Appellant sought the approval of the Applications, consisting of:

Official Plan Amendment Application (“OPA”):

• To amend the OP to redesignate the Subject Lands from the Agricultural designation to an Agricultural Special Policy Area designation to permit the existing Dwelling Unit.

Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“ZBA”)

• To rezone the Subject Lands from the (A1)(t-1) Zone to a new site-specific “Agricultural exception (A1-x)(t-1)” Zone to permit an additional residential unit (“ARU”) within a detached accessory building;

• To locate an accessory building in the front yard and closer to the front lot line than the primary dwelling;

• To allow an accessory structure with a building height of 7.0 m; and,

• To permit an accessory building with a maximum gross floor area of approximately 204.4 square metres (“m²”) (2,200 square feet) or 49% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum gross floor area for all accessory buildings of the lesser of 3% lot coverage or 165 m² (1,776 square foot).

STATUS REQUEST

10The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant status nor individuals at the Hearing requests for either status since the first CMC.

NOTICE OF HEARING

11There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

EXHIBITS

12The following Exhibits were marked during the hearing:

1. Exhibit 1: Michelle Doornbosch Witness Statement OLT-24-000644 (amended);

2. Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Marion-Frances Cabral;

3. Exhibit 3: Municipal Document Book;

4. Exhibit 4: Revised MDS calculation by MD;

5. Exhibit 5: MDS Guidelines; and,

6. Exhibit 6: OPA 59.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

13The Tribunal qualified Ms. Michelle Doornbosch, a member of the Canadian Association of Planning Technicians with extensive experience in land use planning, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in the matter before the Tribunal.

14The Tribunal qualified Ms. Marion-Frances Cabral, a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and candidate member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence concerning land use planning in the matter before the Tribunal.

15Ms. Doornbosch stated that Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, was approved by the Province during the time between the approval of the temporary use zone and the completion and occupancy of the new dwelling on the Subject Lands, and that Bill 23 was subsequently amended to allow up to three residential units on a parcel of land where a residential use is permitted, one of which can be in a detached house, separate from the primary residential use.

16Ms. Doornbosch further indicated that in accordance with Bill 23, the County of Middlesex (“County”) approved the Municipality’s Official Plan Amendment 59 (“OPA 59”) and one of the changes in OPA 59 was to allow Accessory Residential Units (“ARUs”) on lands where single-detached dwellings and other residential uses are permitted. In addition, Ms. Doornbosch stated that OPA 59 was subject to a few appeals before the Tribunal, and the policies associated with it were not yet in full force and effect.

17The Appellant’s Counsel added that ARU related policies in OPA 59 were not appealed to the Tribunal and requested the Tribunal to consider these policies while making the decision on the matter before the Tribunal.

18Ms. Cabral added that the designation of the Subject Lands in OPA 59 remained unchanged, but more guidance was provided for prime agricultural areas, ARUs in agricultural areas, and the natural environment in conformity with the County OP and consistency with the then Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”).

19Ms. Doornbosch further stated that the Municipality passed a Zoning By-law Amendment in July 2023 (“ZBL update”) to implement OPA 59 and this Zoning By-law Amendment was not yet in full force and effect due to the appeals of OPA 59. Ms. Doornbosch confirmed that the ZBL update sets out new regulations for ARUs on residential properties in the Municipality.

Issue #1: Do the Applications have regard to s.2 of the Act and are the Applications consistent with the PPS 2024?

20Ms. Doornbosch provided an overview of the policies under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) in addition to the policies under PPS 2020 in the Planning Rationale in the application package. Ms. Doornbosch held the opinion that the Applications were consistent with the PPS 2024, as the proposed preservation of the accessory dwelling for residential uses would promote the efficient use of the lands on the Subject Lands and would make use of the existing rural housing stock and the existing utilities without impacts to the environment and the existing rural neighbourhood character.

21The Municipality’s Counsel questioned Ms. Doornbosch that no evidence was provided to confirm the Applications had regard to s.2 of the Act. Ms. Doornbosch responded that there were no issues to exclude the identification of having regard to s.2 of the Act, and she further opined that the Applications did have regard to s.2 of the Act, as the proposal to preserve the former principal residence would add the unit to the housing stock in the neighbourhood and Municipality area without negative impacts to the surrounding environment.

22Ms. Cabral stated that PPS 2020 at the time of Applications, included policies to support the provision of a range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the current and future residents of the Municipality but did not provide detailed policies to address ARUs within agricultural areas.

23Ms. Cabral further indicated that the PPS 2024 continued to support the provisions of housing options and added new policy statements with directions to permit and guide ARUs in a prime agricultural area. In Ms. Cabral’s opinion, the proposed ARU was not consistent with the PPS 2024, as it was not compatible with and would hinder the surrounding agricultural operations due to the size of the ARU and the relationship of the ARU and the new principal dwelling on the Subject Lands.

24Further, Ms. Cabral expressed her opinion that the ARU had to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines (“MDS Guidelines”) as required in the PPS 2024 without limiting the establishment and expansion of the agricultural resources, such as livestock, manure storage and other uses that pertain to keeping, training, or rearing of livestock. Ms. Cabral presented the Tribunal her opinion that the ARU might meet the existing MDS calculation, but it would limit the ability of the neighbouring agricultural operations to expand the operations of the existing nearby barn. Ms. Cabral concluded that the proposed ARU was inconsistent with the policies related to ARUs in the PPS 2024.

25Ms. Cabral indicated that the Appellant’s proposal to preserve the former principal dwelling and convert it to an accessory building with an ARU would cause agricultural lands loss, was contrary to the Agriculture policy in the PPS 2024 and was against the Appellant’s original intention to remove the dwelling of the previously approved ZBA to permit the current (A1) (t-1) Zone. In conclusion, Ms. Cabral opined that the Applications were not consistent with the PPS 2024 and requested the Tribunal to refuse the Applications.

Issue #2: Do the proposed Applications conform to the County OP, does the proposed OPA sufficiently satisfy the Municipality OP intent, and does the proposed ZBA conform to the County OP and Municipality OP?

26Ms. Doornbosch presented to the Tribunal with the assessment of ARUs with respect to the policies of the County OP. Mr. Doornbosch expressed her opinion that the Applications to permit the ARU conform to the policies of the County OP related to individual lot intensification, such as ARUs, and met the criteria, including health, safety, servicing and other reasonable standards.

27In addition, Ms. Doornbosch specifically referenced policies 2.3.7.3 and 2.3.7.4 of the County OP, which support ARUs as a way to increase housing stock and the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a single detached dwelling. Ms. Doornbosch clarified that the policy 2.3.7.4 allowed up to a total of three residential units, including the primary dwelling unit, and to provide homeowners with additional sources of income.

28Ms. Doornbosch held the opinion that the ARU was grouped as close as possible to the principal dwelling without utilizing an existing cultivated portion of the Subject Lands and the lands with the ARU were formerly forested area and were poor crop lands. Ms. Doornbosch also opined that the ARU should be considered grouped with the new principal dwelling based on the current distance between the two buildings and the size of the Subject Lands (approximately 720 m in depth by 300 m wide).

29Ms. Cabral stated that the County OP permitted ARUs outside of the settlement areas subject to the conditions, which required the ARUs to be grouped or clustered with the primary principal building, to be self-contained, subordinate to, and located within the same building or on the same lot of the primary dwelling unit.

30Ms. Cabral further opined that the proposed ARU should not be considered being clustered with the main principal dwelling based on the physical distance of approximate 130 m between the two buildings and that the ARU, as the former principal dwelling, would be fully functioning separately with separate services, a separate access and a physical boundary surrounded by a treeline.

31Counsel for the Appellant received confirmation from Ms. Cabral that the County OP required the ARUs to be grouped with, but not clustered with, the principal dwelling.

32Counsel for the Appellant further argued that there was no specific requirement of the distance of the accessory building from the principal dwelling to define building group, and the lands for the former principal dwelling had been removed from agriculture related uses. The Appellant’s Counsel further indicated that the Temporary Agreement of the previously approved ZBA excluded requirements to return the lands to agriculture related uses.

33Ms. Cabral responded that, the lands with the former principal dwelling had low quality soil, did not have be cultivated or in agricultural production but could be associated with agricultural production.

34Ms. Doornbosch demonstrated to the Tribunal that her MDS calculation was based on the capability of housing livestock at the nearest existing facility (21272 Denfield Road) and concluded that a setback of 135 m was required, and the former principal dwelling was beyond this requirement.

35The Municipality’s Counsel received verification from Ms. Doornbosch through cross examination that Ms. Doornbosch chose Type A Land Use (less sensitive) to calculate MDS for the Applications, the calculation in the Applications package was incorrect, and the setback of approximate 151 m was accurate and appropriate. Ms. Doornbosch added that the proposed ARU still met the MDS formulae.

36In Ms. Doornbosch’s response to the question of the Municipality’s Counsel regarding the ability of the farm at the south to expand in future, she confirmed that the expansion was unable to meet the MDS Guidelines due to another nearby residential dwelling.

37The Municipality’s Counsel further argued that the purpose of the Applications should be considered as a “development” and accordingly, Guideline No. 34 should be used for calculation.

38Ms. Doonrbosch disagreed with the position of the Municipality’s Counsel and stated that the proposed ARU would not be a more sensitive use and the intent of the Applications was not to permit a “development” as the former principal dwelling (proposed ARU) already existed.

39Ms. Cabral opined that the County OP and Municipality OP both required the proposed development to meet the MDS formulae, and the proposed ARU failed to meet this requirement based on her calculation.

40Ms. Cabral stated that her MDS calculation was based on the information on AgriSuite, which determined the potential design capacity of the closest barn was double of the number that Ms. Doornbosch used (Ms. Cabral: 60 nutrient units vs. Ms. Doornbosch: 30 nutrient units). Ms. Cabral further confirmed that she calculated the setback of approximate 302 m, and accordingly, Ms. Cabral concluded that the proposed ARU did not meet the MDS Guidelines.

41Counsel for the Appellant further challenged Ms. Cabral’s selection of Guideline No. 34 (Type B Land use - more sensitive) and Ms. Cabral confirmed that, if Type A was used for the calculation, Ms. Doornbosch’s calculation met the MDS Guideline and Type A was also acceptable as the term of “including but not limited to” in Guideline No. 33.

Issue #3: Does the ZBA application sufficiently satisfy the ZBL intent?

42Ms. Doornbosch stated that the adopted OPA 59 directed the Municipality to establish regulation provisions for ARUs in the Municipality ZBL update, which was not in full force and effect due to the status of OPA 59. Ms. Doornbosch further indicated that the proposed ZBA application was required to include site-specific requirements to permit the ARU within the accessory building on the Subject Lands and the existing dwelling and the site conditions for the accessory building would remain unchanged. Ms. Doornbosch expressed her opinion that the ZBA was appropriate with respect to the adopted OPA 59, the policies of which related to ARUs were not appealed, and the site-specific requirement of the maximum height under the ZBA application would be excluded under the current A1 zone once the Municipality ZBL update was in full force.

43Ms. Cabral opined that the former principal dwelling failed to meet the definition of an accessory building in the Municipality ZBL and should not be considered as an accessory building due to the size of the former principal dwelling and the distance between the new principal dwelling and the accessory building. In Ms. Cabral’s opinion, the former principal dwelling was not incidental, subordinate and exclusively devoted to the main use as it would function separately from the new principal dwelling.

44Ms. Cabral also presented her assessment of the ZBA application with respect to the ZBL update and held an opinion that the ZBA did not conform to the provisions of the ZBL update with the exception of the direct access to a public street and number of parking spaces for the proposed ARU.

Findings

45The Tribunal prefers Ms. Doornbosch’s opinion that the Applications do have regard to s.2 of the Act and are consistent with the PPS 2024, as the proposal adds one residential unit to the housing stock and makes efficient use of the lands and existing infrastructure.

46The Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to give consideration to the policies related to ARUs under the adopted OPA 59, as the appeals to OPA 59 will not impact these policies. The Tribunal recognizes that OPA 59 permits ARUs on the Subject Lands subject to criteria, which includes the requirement of the MDS formulae and the relationship between the accessory building and the new principal dwelling.

47The Tribunal evaluates the definition of the accessory building and the term of “grouped” in regard to the relationship of the accessory building and the principal dwelling. Ms. Doornbosch’s evidence is more persuasive that her MDS calculation is appropriate, as there will be no development activities on the portion of the lands with the accessory building, the sensitivity level of the land use for the lands with the accessory building will remain the same, and the neighbouring farm’s expansion ability is restricted by the nearby existing residential dwellings. Further, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is no specific requirement of distance between the accessory building and the principal dwelling in the County OP to determine if the accessory building is grouped with the main dwelling. Therefore, the Tribunal considers the accessory building is grouped with the new principal dwelling.

48The Tribunal recognizes that the ZBA is required to permit the provisions for the existing accessory building as it does not meet all the regulations under the current version of the Municipality ZBL and ZBL update. The Tribunal further acknowledges that the Appellant has no intent to alter the regulations for the accessory building and the site conditions of the lands with the accessory building.

49After carefully assessing the testimonies of both sides, the Tribunal favours the evidence of the Appellant. The Tribunal finds that the Applications:

• Have regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest set out in s.2 of the Act;

• Are consistent with the PPS 2024;

• Conform with the County OP 2014 and the intentions of the Municipality OP;

• Reflect the principles of good land use planning in the public interest.

ORDER

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed and directs the Municipality of Middlesex Centre to:

1. amend the Official Plan of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; and,

2. amend the Zoning By-law No. 2005-005 of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre as follows:

1. changing the zoning classification on the lands legally described as Concession 6 S Pt Lot 28 (former Township of London) and known as 2312 Sunningdale Road W, Municipality of Middlesex Centre and forming part of this amendment, from Agricultural (A1)(t-1) zone to a new site-specific Agricultural (A1-x)(t-1) zone, adding the following site-specific requirements:

• To permit an additional residential unit (“ARU”) within a detached accessory building;

• To locate an accessory building in the front yard and closer to the front lot line than the primary dwelling;

• To allow an accessory structure with a building height of 7.0 m; and

• To permit an accessory building with a maximum gross floor area of approximately 204.4 square metres (2,200 square feet) or 49% of the floor area of the principal dwelling.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Official Plan Amendment