Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 17, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000227

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Municipality of Grey Highlands

Applicant: Devin Kloosterboer & Shawn Delaat

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with reduced distanced from interior side lot line

Reference Number: A17.2024

Property Address: 714340 Baseline

Municipality/UT: Grey Highlands/Grey County

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000227

OLT Case Name: Grey Highlands v. Grey Highlands (town)

Heard: August 21, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Municipality of Grey Highlands	Edward Veldboom
Devin Kloosterboer & Shawn Delaat	Paula Lombardi

DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This hearing was convened to consider the appeals by the Municipality of Grey Highlands (“Appellant”) of the decision of the Municipality’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to approve the minor variance within the Application.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER

2The property is designated as Agriculture under both the Grey County and Grey Highlands Official Plans (“GCOP”, “GHOP”) and falls within the Agriculture (A1) and Restricted Agriculture (A2) zoning categories established by the Grey Highlands Zoning By-law 2004‑50. The land originally formed part of a road allowance intended to extend Grey Road 14. This allowance was formally closed in 1959 and later transferred by the municipality without any conditions. The parcel measures approximately 20 metres (“m”) in width and 742 m in depth.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

3On November 2, 2024, the Applicants submitted a minor variance application to the Municipality of Grey Highlands seeking permission to construct a single detached dwelling on the property. To enable the proposed development, they requested relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 2004‑50, which stipulate a minimum interior side yard setback of 15 m for detached dwellings. The variance would reduce this required setback to 6 m.

PLANNING HISTORY

4Municipality Staff, through Report # 2025-3 dated January 10, 2025, recommended the approval of the Application.

5On February 11, 2025, the COA approved the Application and aforementioned Variance with two conditions;

a) The well for the dwelling on the subject lot must be situated a minimum of 15 metres from the eastern interior side lot line.

b) The minimum rear yard setback for a dwelling on the subject lot must be a minimum of 550 metres.

STATUS REQUEST

6The Tribunal was presented with one Participant request from Talisa Haskins.

7There were no objections to the request.

8The Tribunal granted Participant Status to Ms. Haskins.

SUBMISSIONS

9The Tribunal heard opinion evidence from three witnesses.

For the Applicant;

1. Abdullah Pasha, Land Use Planner for the Municipality, under witness summons.
2. Matt Rapke, Land Use Planner Partner with Cornabus Planning.

For the Municipality.

1. Jamie Robinson, a Land Use Planner and Partner at MHBC.

10All witnesses were qualified with no objections and affirmed to provide expert evidence.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

11The Tribunal must consider whether the variances have sufficient regard to the Provincial interests listed in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (the “PPS 2024”) and meet each of the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Act.

12Section 2 of the Planning Act requires that the Tribunal in carrying out its responsibility, must have regard for matters of provincial interest.

Provincial Policy Statement 2024

13At the time of the submission of the Application, the PPS 2024 was in-force and in effect.

14Pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Planning Act, decisions by the Tribunal, are required to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) in effect at the time of the decision.

15Mr. Rapke provided that the subject property is designated as Agricultural in both the Grey County and Grey Highlands Official Plans, meaning it is identified as Prime Agricultural Land under the PPS, 2024.

16The PPS allows residential uses on existing lots within Prime Agricultural Areas and also permits up to two additional dwelling units on a single lot in this designation. While the PPS requires new residential uses in Agricultural areas to meet the Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”) formula, it does not regulate specific minimum interior side yard setbacks.

17There is no livestock facilities within 750 m of the proposed development—the required MDS review area—so MDS does not pose any issues.

18The proposed use and variance are therefore consistent with the PPS.

19Mr. Robinson shared that Section 4.3.1.2 emphasizes that prime agricultural land and prime agricultural areas must be preserved for long‑term agricultural use. The requested minor variance, however, would allow a residential use that fails to maintain the long‑term agricultural potential of the surrounding lands.

20The minor variance application seeks to allow a residential dwelling in a location where such a use is currently prohibited. This proposal does not conform with Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.1 of the PPS, as establishing a new residential use within a prime agricultural area fails to preserve the area for long‑term agricultural purposes.

[Section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec45subsec1_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

Does the application maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans 0f Grey County and Grey Highlands? GCOP, GHOP

21Mr. Rapke provided that Section 4.1.1 of the Grey Highlands Official Plan permits a single detached dwelling.

22The Tribunal heard the Subject Property is located adjacent to lands of a significant woodland, as identified in the Grey County Official Plan. The Plan requires that any new development situated within or near significant woodlands demonstrate that it will not negatively impact the natural feature.

23The central portion of the Subject Property has already been cleared of trees due to its historic function as a roadway.

24The Tribunal further heard that neither the Municipality’s nor the County’s Official Plans (“OP”) include policies regarding minimum side yard setbacks, as such regulations are enacted in the Municipality’s comprehensive zoning by-law.

25Mr. Rapke opined that the proposed development of the Subject Property for a single residential dwelling unit is consistent with the general intent and purpose of both the County and Municipal Official Plans.

26Mr. Pasha stated that the GCOP and GHOP permit residential uses in Agricultural designations and do not set residential setback requirements aside from environmental considerations. As such, the proposed dwelling is permitted use and the variance aligns with the intent of both Official Plans.

27Mr. Robinson contended that although the County OP permits residential dwellings on existing lots, once a Planning Act application is required, the proposal must be assessed against the full OP.

28Section 5.2.1 does not define the OP’s intent. That intent is set out in Section 5.1, which prioritizes protecting agricultural land over new housing in the countryside. Section 5.2.2.4 also discourages non‑agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas and establishes criteria that must be met. No evidence has been provided that the proposal satisfies these requirements, and in Mr. Robinson’s opinion, it does not conform to Section 5.2.4(b)4.

29Accordingly, the requested variance allowing a non‑agricultural use in a prime agricultural area does not meet the intent of the County OP.

30Mr. Robinson stated that the subject site is defined within the Municipality’s OP as lot in Prime Agricultural Land within a Prime Agricultural Area. The proposed minor variance would allow a building permit to be issued for a residential dwelling in a prime agricultural area, on prime agricultural lands, where such a dwelling cannot currently be constructed. This does not align with the themes, goals, or objectives outlined in Section 2.1 of the Municipality’s Official Plan.

31Mr. Robinson opined that the variance therefore fails to meet the intent of the Municipality’s Official Plan and the County’s Official Plan. As a result, the proposal does not satisfy the conformity and policy‑consistency requirements.

Does the application maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

32Through Mr. Rapke, the Tribunal heard that the Subject Property is designated Agriculture and Restricted Agriculture under the Grey Highlands Comprehensive Zoning By‑law. The area zoned Agriculture (A1) comprises only a small portion at the front of the lot, while the majority of the property—including the area proposed for development—is zoned Restricted Agriculture (A2).

33The A2 zone follows the same provisions as the A1 zone aside from intensive agricultural operations being prohibited within the A2 zone.

34Mr. Rapke emphasized that the A2 Zone applies to the Subject Property. Under this zone, a single detached dwelling is explicitly listed as a permitted use in Section 6.1.1(b) of the Zoning By‑law.

35The interior side yard setback is the only requirement in Section 6.1.2 that cannot be met on this property. The lot has a width of only 20 m, and it is simply not physically possible to achieve two interior side yard setbacks of 15 m each on a lot of that size.

36To properly assess the intent of the interior side yard setback provision, it is necessary to look beyond Section 6.1.2 and consider the related provision in Section 6.1.5, which provides important context for understanding the purpose of the required setback.

37Provision 6.1.5 requires that existing lots that are less than 1 hectare (“ha”) in area be treated with the provisions of the Rural Residential Zone.

38Mr. Rapke provided that two key effects occur within the Zoning By‑law as it relates to small lots in the countryside that are zoned Agriculture or Restricted Agriculture that have an area of less than one ha.

39Firstly, several of the uses that would normally be permitted as‑of‑right in the Agriculture zone become prohibited, because the Rural Residential zone—into which the By‑law automatically shifts these undersized lots—is significantly more restrictive in terms of permitted uses.

40Secondly, the minimum interior side yard setback applicable to such a lot is reduced to 6 m, rather than the 15‑m setback that would otherwise apply in the Agriculture or Restricted Agriculture zones.

41This automatic re‑zoning mechanism was purposefully built into the Zoning By‑law. It recognizes that many small lots in the countryside were never properly rezoned to Rural Residential during the Municipality’s most recent comprehensive zoning update completed on October 26, 2024. It also acknowledges a practical reality: many existing undersized lots simply cannot meet the full A1 or A2 zone development standards.

42Mr. Rapke testified that the intent behind this mechanism is to ensure that the Zoning By‑law allows for the reasonable, as‑of‑right development of an existing lot of record, particularly for a single detached dwelling, even when the lot is physically incapable of meeting the standards intended for larger agricultural parcels. The By‑law provides a pathway to regulate these lots in a way that is both functional and consistent with typical rural residential development.

43He further provided, the subject lot does not meet the minimum frontage requirement of the Rural Residential Zone, which is 100 m. However, the Zoning By‑law also contains a provision;

5.3 Non- Complying Lots

(a)(iii), Such parcel has a frontage of 10 metres minimum to a public highway;

44This allows existing lots of record to be developed even when they do not comply with the minimum frontage requirements of the zone in this case the subject site has a frontage of 20 m.

45This provision ensures that long‑standing, legally established lots are not rendered undevelopable solely because they do not meet current zoning standards, and it reflects the By‑law’s intent to enable reasonable use of existing lots of record.

46Mr. Rapke opined that the Zoning By‑law clearly supports the proposed variance because:

1. the proposed single‑detached dwelling is a permitted use;
2. the By‑law includes specific provisions enabling as‑of‑right development on undersized existing lots; and
3. the same development would be permitted as‑of‑right if the lot were roughly one‑third smaller.

47Collectively, these factors indicate that the variance is consistent with the intent of the Zoning By‑law.

48Mr. Pasha testified that the Subject Property is a legal non‑conforming lot and is an existing lot of record. Under Section 6.1.2(b) of Zoning By‑law 2004‑50, lots in the A1 and A2 zones must have a minimum area of 40 ha and a minimum frontage of 200 m.

49The Subject Property is approximately 1.52 ha in size with 20 m of frontage. As a result, its physical characteristics more closely resemble those of Rural Residential (“RUR”) lots, which require a minimum area of 0.8 ha and 100 m of frontage.

50With respect to setbacks: the required interior side yard setback in the RUR zone is 6 m—the same setback the Applicant is seeking. Section 6.1.5 of Zoning By‑law 2004‑50 further states that the RUR zone standards apply to all existing lots of record within the A1 and A2 zones that are under one ha.

51Mr. Pasha provided that had this lot been approximately 0.52 ha smaller, the proposed 6‑m setback would have been permitted as‑of‑right for a new dwelling. The fact that the lot is only slightly larger than the one‑ha threshold is a technical outcome of the By‑law’s wording, which prevents the proposed dwelling from fully qualifying under that automatic provision.

52The zoning permits a single‑detached dwelling and includes specific mechanisms intended to facilitate residential development on undersized lots. Planning Staff are of the view that the requested variance maintains the general purpose and intent of Zoning By‑law 2004‑50.

53Mr. Robinson stated that the Zoning By-law sets minimum lot standards in the A1 and A2 zones to ensure a lot can properly support a dwelling and associated services such as a well, septic system, driveway, and parking. These requirements also help maintain rural character. The purpose of the interior side yard setback in the A1 zone is to ensure adequate separation from neighbouring properties in a rural setting.

54Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law has provisions that apply to non-complying lots, buildings and structures. The subject lot’s size and configuration—together with the requested reduction to the interior side yard setback—are sufficient to accommodate the proposed dwelling.

55He opined that placing a dwelling as proposed would not alter the character of the area.

56The requested variance satisfies the intent of the interior side yard setback provision.

Be minor in nature

57Mr. Rapke explained that the variance is minor because the reduction to a 6‑m interior side yard setback must be evaluated in context—not by percentage alone. Although the relief represents a 60% reduction from the 15‑m A1/A2 standard, the Zoning By‑law already permits a 6‑m setback for single‑detached dwellings on smaller rural lots and would allow this setback as‑of‑right if the subject property were slightly smaller. This demonstrates that a 6‑m setback is fully contemplated within the By‑law.

58Applying the RUR setback standard through a minor variance is also not a significant policy decision, especially given that hundreds of rural properties in the municipality operate with the same minimum setback for the same use. The 15‑m setback is intended to buffer agricultural buildings, not dwellings, and the requested setback is consistent with established rural residential patterns.

59For these reasons, he opined that the request is minor in both scale and impact.

60Mr. Pasha opined that the requested relief of 6 m reflects existing provisions of Grey Highlands Zoning By-law 2004-50 for residential lots and the countryside and is therefore minor in nature.

61Contrarily, Mr. Robinson stated that while the numerical reduction from a 15‑m to a 6m‑ interior side yard setback could, on its face, be viewed as minor, the impact of granting this relief is not minor. The variance would enable the construction of a dwelling on an undersized lot that is not currently eligible for a building permit. This outcome would effectively introduce a new residential use within a prime agricultural area. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that establishing a dwelling would avoid negative impacts on either the prime agricultural lands.

62Mr. Robinson opined the variance is not minor.

Desirable for the Appropriate Use of the Land

63Mr. Rapke attested that this final test considers the potential impacts of the variance on neighbouring properties and the broader public interest. There are four existing dwellings within 300 m of the proposed building area, with the closest being approximately 150 m away. Mature woodlots fully screen the proposed building site from three of these dwellings.

64Regardless of visibility, the reduction of the interior side yard setback from 15 m to 6 m has no adverse effect on any surrounding property. Based on the lot’s context and separation from neighbouring uses, the requested 6‑m setback is desirable and represents appropriate development of the land.

65Mr. Pasha concurred in that permitting a single‑detached dwelling on the subject property is desirable, as it enables the land to be developed in a manner that aligns with the intent of the Official Plan, conforms to the Zoning By‑law, and supports current provincial direction encouraging municipalities to facilitate additional housing.

66Mr. Robinson conversely provided that there is no broader public interest in enabling residential development on this vacant lot within a prime agricultural area. While the application seeks to introduce a residential use that is permitted in the zone, the lot’s physical constraints currently prevent a dwelling from being established. As a result, the variance would not only reduce the required side yard setbacks but would also enable a dwelling on a lot where one cannot presently be constructed.

67Allowing a dwelling on this site would introduce a sensitive residential use into a prime agricultural area. Provincial policy establishes the protection of agricultural lands as a matter of public interest. In this context, enabling a new dwelling on this lot would conflict with that provincial direction and is therefore not in the public interest.

FINDINGS

68The hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Appellant.

69The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances.

70The tests require that the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
• be minor in nature and,
• be desirable for the appropriate development

71The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the evidence of M. Rapke and Mr. Pasha.

72The Tribunal is satisfied that the favourable staff Planning Report #2025-12 coupled with no objections from the various agencies and has addressed any concerns with the Proposal.

73Further, the Tribunal supports the decision of the COA and its recommending conditions to the approval.

74The Tribunal finds that the By-law and its multiple provisions overtly identify and accommodate this form of development, specifically the proposed single‑detached dwelling as a permitted use on the Subject Property.

75The Tribunal finds the Application aims to redevelop an underutilized lot and is a fair request for a permitted use to be established on the Subject Property.

76The Tribunal finds the minor variance is good planning is in the public interest and that the four tests of s.45(1) of the Act are met.

ORDER

77THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed and the variance to By-law 2004‑50 is allowed subject to the condition(s) set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI 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

1. The well for the dwelling on the subject lot must be situated a minimum of 15 metres from the eastern interior side lot line.
2. The minimum rear yard setback for a dwelling on the subject lot must be a minimum of 550 metres.