Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 20, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000732
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Nortterra Meaford II Inc.
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
MV to provide relief from parking requirements
Reference Number:
A07-2025
Property Address:
Lots 1 -18, 23-26, and 94-97, Plan 16M-89, Equality Drive
Municipality/UT:
Meaford/Grey
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000732
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000732
OLT Case Name:
Nortterra Meaford II Inc. v. Meaford (Municipality)
Heard:
January 13, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Nortterra Meaford II Inc.
R. Cheeseman/S. Fleming
Municipality of Meaford/Grey
Did not attend
DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This hearing was convened to consider the appeals by Norttera Meaford II Inc. (“Appellant”) of the decision of the Municipality of Meaford/Grey (“Municipality”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) made on August 27, 2025 to refuse the minor variances.
2The subject properties are located on Equality Drive within the Loon Call Subdivision, an active residential development in the Urban Area of Meaford.
3The Appellant proposes to develop single-detached homes on the subject lands, each specifically designed to accommodate two Additional Residential Units (“ARUs”). The proposal aligns with provincial housing objectives and complies with the Municipal Zoning By-law. However, when the Zoning By-law was updated through By-law 2024-24 to implement new provincial ARU policies, Section 5.5(b) was inadvertently not revised to allow front-yard parking for dwellings containing two ARUs.
VARIANCES REQUESTED
4The Appellant is requesting relief from Section 5.5(b) of Municipal Zoning By-law 60-2009 to allow parking spaces to be located within the front yard of a building containing three or more dwelling units.
STATUS REQUEST
5The Tribunal was in informed of two Participant Status requests by Roy Meredith and Justine Crouch.
There were no objections to the request.
The Tribunal granted the Participant Status requests.
SUBMISSIONS
6The Tribunal heard opinion evidence from two witnesses.
7For the Appellant;
Robert Armstrong, a Land Use Planner Partner with Travis and Associates
Michael Kelly, a Land use Planner for the Municipality, under Subpoena.
8All witnesses were qualified with no objections and affirmed to provide expert evidence.
9The Tribunal was informed that the Municipality would not attend the hearing but was in receipt of the Planning Report prepared by staff of the Planning and Building Services dated July 23, 2025.
10The report supported the requested variances.
11The Tribunal heard that the Appellant is requesting an exemption relief from Section 5.5(b) of Municipal Zoning By-law 60-2009 to allow parking spaces to be located within the front yard of a building containing three or more dwelling units.
12The Tribunal was informed that the Municipality passed By-law 2024-24 to implement the changes from the Government of Ontario regulations 299/19 and 462/240 regarding ARU.
13When By-law 60-2009 was amended by By-law 2024-24, section 5.5(b) to permit parking spaces in a front or exterior side yards, was not updated.
14The Tribunal learned that the Municipality’s Planning staff intended to correct the omission through a housekeeping amendment.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
15Through Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Kelly and the Town’s Staff report, the Tribunal was advised of the relevant criteria that was presented to support the requested variances against the four legislative tests described below.
1. Maintain the general intent of the Official Plan
16The County of Grey Official Plan designates the subject lands as a Primary Settlement Area, where a broad range of land uses, including residential development, is permitted. The County Official Plan provides overarching policy direction to local official plans, which offer more detailed guidance for land use within settlement areas. Under the Meaford Official Plan, the subject properties are designated Urban Living Area.
17This designation is intended to promote a diverse range of housing options and support appropriate forms of residential intensification. The requested minor variance seeks relief from certain parking requirements to facilitate the development of multiple ARU on the property without unduly constraining the site layout and is consistent with the objectives of the Urban Living Area designation.
18Collectively, the subject variance maintains the intent and purpose of the County of Grey Official Plan and Municipality of Meaford Official Plan.
2. Maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law
19The Tribunal learned the Zoning By-law is designed to regulate land use and establish development standards, including requirements related to lot size, setbacks, and building height.
20Section 5.5 specifically governs the permissible locations of parking areas on a property. Subsection 5.5(b) provides that parking spaces for buildings containing three or more dwelling units are not permitted within a front or exterior side yard.
21This provision was originally intended to apply to larger-scale residential developments, such as apartment complexes or extended townhouse blocks, where locating parking at the rear helps prevent streetscapes from being dominated by expansive parking areas.
22It was not intended to regulate parking arrangements for single-detached or semi-detached dwellings. At the time section 5.5(b) was enacted, the Province had not yet introduced policies allowing two ARU to be established as-of-right within a single dwelling, and this scenario was therefore not anticipated.
23Jointly, the requested relief maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
3. Desirable development of the property
24The requested variance is intended to support the development of a broader range of housing forms, including options that may be more affordable.
25The purpose of the variance is to allow each lot to satisfy the remaining parking requirements of the Zoning By-law without significantly compromising the functionality and developability of the subject parcels.
26Mutually, the witnesses opined that the requested relief is desirable and appropriate for the development of the property.
4. Minor in nature
27The Tribunal was informed that the requested relief from the Zoning By-law would permit parking spaces to be located within the front yard of a building containing three or more dwelling units. Based on the site plan submitted with the application, each dwelling is designed to accommodate a four-vehicle driveway. At present, there are no municipal restrictions on the number of vehicles that may be parked in the front yard of a single-detached dwelling containing only one dwelling unit; therefore, four vehicles may be parked in the driveway without breaching the Zoning By-law.
28The Tribunal was advised that under a scenario where a property developed with a single-detached dwelling containing a principal unit and one Additional Residential Unit, along with a second ARU located within a detached accessory structure, would also be permitted to accommodate all four required parking spaces within the front yard. The restriction only applies where three dwelling units are contained within a single building.
29As the requested relief would allow the parcels in question to operate in a manner which is no different than any other building in the immediate area, the witnesses are of the opinion that the application is minor.
FINDINGS
30The 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.
31The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four above tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances.
32The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the testimony of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Kelly and the Municipality’s Staff report.
33The Tribunal acknowledges that Provincial Additional Residential Unit policies are intended to increase housing density while maintaining neighbourhood character by integrating additional units within new or existing single-detached dwellings. Requiring parking to be located entirely in the rear yard would detract from this objective, as the resulting building form would no longer be consistent with the surrounding area.
34Given the configuration of the lots, relocating all required parking to the rear yard would be extremely challenging and would substantially restrict the layout and usability of any dwelling constructed on the properties. Accordingly, granting relief from this provision of the Municipal Zoning By-law would allow the lands to be developed in a manner that respects both the physical characteristics of the lots and the established character of the neighbourhood.
35The Tribunal finds that the requested variance is reasonable, consistent, and necessary. The approved site plan demonstrates that each dwelling is designed to accommodate a four-vehicle driveway, enabling compliance with the Zoning By-law’s requirement for four on-site parking spaces, two for the principal unit and one for each ARU, without generating spillover parking or adverse impacts.
36The Tribunal agrees that granting the requested relief restores policy consistency and upholds the By-law’s original intent. Allowing front-yard parking in this context maintains neighbourhood character, ensures on-site parking compliance, and avoids unnecessary design contortions that would impair site functionality.
37The Tribunal further agrees, the variance eliminates an unintended regulatory gap, achieves parity with already-permitted parking outcomes, supports gentle density in line with provincial ARU policy, and facilitates housing options without adverse streetscape or operational impacts. Approval is therefore both appropriate and in the public interest.
38Furthermore, the Town’s report in not opposing the variance provides added credibility to the appeal and the Tribunal determines the appeal should be allowed.
ORDER
39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 60-2009 is authorized.
“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.