Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 09, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000808

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

Applicant/Appellant: Adam Cruickshank Subject: Minor Variance Description: Minor Variance for the construction of an accessory building Reference Number: A25-051/M Property Address: 11245 Fourth Line Nassagaweya Municipality/UT: Milton/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-25-000808 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000808 OLT Case Name: Cruickshank v Milton (Town)

Heard: May 26, 2026 by video hearing and May 27, 2026 by written hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Adam Cruickshank Town of Milton

Counsel Jennifer Meader (in absentia) Jessica De Marinis Konstantine Stavrakos

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”), heard on May 26, 2026, and a Hearing of the merits in writing, on May 27, 2026, relating to an appeal brought pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), from the Town of Milton’s (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) denial of a minor variance (“MV”) application. The Appeal has been filed by Adam Cruickshank (“Appellant”) regarding the property located at 11245 Fourth Line Nassagaweya, Town of Milton (“Subject Property”).

2The Appellant submitted an MV application to permit the construction of an accessory building on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is approximately 39.6 hectares in area and is located on the east side of Fourth Line Nassagaweya, between 15 Side Road and 20 Side Road. The Subject Property is designated “Agricultural Area” (but not prime agricultural area) and is located within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. The Subject Property contains an existing residential dwelling, a detached garage, and a pool house.

3The Appellant applied for permission to construct an accessory building on the Subject Property. Two MVs, one for maximum height and one for maximum gross floor area (“GFA”), were requested.

4The CoA denied the MV application on September 25, 2025, stating that the MVs did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, were not considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were not minor.

STATUS REQUESTS

5The Tribunal received no requests for Party or Participant status prior to or during the CMC or the written Hearing.

SCHEDULING

6At the CMC on May 26, 2026, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they were seeking a written Hearing for the Tribunal to consider a proposed settlement. The Tribunal agreed to this request and so directed, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

7A written Hearing for OLT Case File No. OLT-25-000808 was scheduled to commence on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, in writing.

EVIDENCE

8For the written Hearing on May 27, 2026, the Appellant provided a 170-page document containing an affidavit for Pierre Chauvin, supporting planning documents, and other appeal evidence. This submission was marked as Exhibit 1. An Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form was submitted for Pierre Chauvin and was marked as Exhibit 2.

9Pierre Chauvin, a Registered Professional Planner and Partner at MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, submitted evidence set out in his affidavit and dated April 8, 2026.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

10The Appellant has appealed the CoA decision and requested the following MVs:

a. To permit the construction of an accessory building to a maximum of 10.9 metres instead of the maximum permitted 5.5 metres as defined in s. 4.1.2.2(ii) of the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 144-2003 (“ZBL”), and

b. To permit the accessory building to have a maximum GFA of 871.6 square metres instead of the maximum GFA of 93 square metres as defined in s. 4.1.2.2(ii) of the ZBL.

Sections 2 and 3(5) of the Planning Act

11The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV application must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The MV application must also conform to the Greenbelt Act, 2005 (“GBA”) and the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 (“GBP”).

12While Mr. Chauvin did not directly speak to how the application had regard for matters of provincial interest, his evidence addressed the criteria within s. 2 of the Act. His evidence supported protection of agricultural resources, protection of ecological systems, and a well-designed built form.

13Mr. Chauvin highlighted several sections of the PPS to show consistency with the MV application:

a. Policy 4.3.1(2) – there would be no loss of agricultural land due to the construction of the proposed accessory building.

b. Policy 2.6.1 – the policy allows for broad uses outside of prime agricultural areas and the Parties have agreed that the accessory building will not be used as:

i. a place of assembly;

ii. a place of entertainment; or

iii. a place of worship.

c. Policy 4.1(1) – an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”), conducted by Sumac Environmental Consulting (found in Exhibit 1), concluded that significant impacts to natural heritage features are not expected, provided that the development implement the recommendations in the EIA.

d. Policy 4.1(8) – the EIA concluded that no significant negative impacts to the natural heritage features or adjacent lands are expected.

14It is Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that the proposed accessory building will not result in a loss of agricultural lands under active production, will be compatible with the rural character of the area, and will not negatively impact natural heritage features or adjacent lands. It is his opinion that the MV application is consistent with the PPS.

15Mr. Chauvin explained how the MV application satisfies the requirements of the GBP, as follows:

a. Section 3.2.3(3) – requires new development or site alteration within the Natural Heritage System to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features or their functions.

b. Section 3.2.5(5) – requires a natural heritage evaluation (or a hydrological evaluation) of a proposed development or site alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage feature within the Natural Heritage System or a key hydrologic feature within the Protected Countryside.

16It is Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that, based on the EIA, there are no expected significant negative impacts to the identified natural heritage features or adjacent lands. It is his opinion that the MV application satisfies the requirements of the GBP.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

17When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, to determine if the requested variance:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

2. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law;

3. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

4. is minor in nature.

18The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met.

General Intent and Purpose of the Region of Halton Official Plan

19Section 100 of the Region of Halton Official Plan (“HOP”) defines the permitted uses under the Agricultural Area designation. Relevant permitted uses (but not all uses) for the Subject Property are listed below:

a. Single detached dwelling on existing lots

b. Accessory buildings or structures

20Mr. Chauvin pointed out that under part VI of the HOP, accessory buildings are defined as:

ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE means a detached building or structure that is not used for human habitation, the use of which is naturally and normally incidental to, subordinate to, or exclusively devoted to a principal use or building and located on the same lot.

21Mr. Chauvin pointed out that s. 117.1(10) of the HOP permits accessory buildings within the Natural Heritage System, subject to policies of the HOP, the GBP, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and applicable local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws.

22Mr. Chauvin stated that s. 139.3.7(2) of the HOP prohibits development or site alteration on lands adjacent to key features, unless an evaluation of the ecological functions has been completed. Mr. Chauvin reiterated that the EIA shows no significant negative impacts to these features.

23It is Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that the MV application conforms to the HOP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Town of Milton Official Plan

24Mr. Chauvin reiterated that the Subject Property is designated Agricultural Area with a Greenbelt Natural Heritage System overlay. Section 4.4.2 of the Town of Milton’s Official Plan (“MOP”) identifies Agricultural Areas as lands where the predominant use is agriculture.

25Mr. Chauvin stated that s. 4.4.2(k) of the MOP has accessory buildings as a permitted use in the agricultural area designation.

26Mr. Chauvin stated that ss. 4.10.1.6(b) and (e) set criteria for development or site alteration similar to s. 139.3.7(2) of the HOP.

27It is Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that the MV application conforms to the MOP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

28The Subject Property is zoned “Rural (A2)” under the ZBL. Section 10.1 of the ZBL has multiple permitted uses for “A2” properties including, but not limited to, agricultural operation, home industry, home occupation, and storage building for agricultural equipment.

29Mr. Chauvin highlighted Table 10B of the ZBL which outlines the zone standards including building height. Under the A1 (agricultural) and A2 zones, 11 metres is the maximum building height for residential buildings. Mr. Chauvin explained that there are no maximum height requirements for agricultural buildings in these zones.

30Section 4.1 of the MOP permits accessory buildings in all zones.

31Mr. Chauvin stated that under s. 4.1.2.2(ii) of the ZBL, the maximum height of accessory buildings is 5.5 metres and the maximum GFA is 93 square metres.

32The proposed use of the accessory building is personal storage (e.g., snowplow, tractor, personal vehicles). The proposed accessory building is designed with architectural similarities to a bank barn. It is Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that the proposed use of the accessory building is compatible and maintains the agricultural/rural character of the area.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

33Mr. Chauvin stated that the MV relief is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land because:

a. The accessory building will be used for the storage of personal equipment which may prevent environmental concerns, safety concerns, and minimize negative visual impacts to the character of the Subject Property.

b. The design of the accessory building intentionally fits the historic farmstead identity of the Town of Milton countryside.

Is Minor in Nature

34Mr. Chauvin stated that the MV application is minor in nature because the impact to the agricultural/rural character of the area is minor. He stated that there are appropriate screening measures in place given its proposed location relative to the natural heritage features and the tree coverage on the Subject Property. He continued that the accessory building could be used as a barn in the future. He concluded by stating that there are no anticipated negative impacts to the natural heritage features or adjacent lands.

Summary

35It is Mr. Chauvin’s expert opinion that the MVs:

a. represent good planning,

b. meet all policy requirements,

c. meet all requirements of s. 45(1) of the Act,

d. meet the four tests, and

e. are in the public interest.

FINDINGS

36The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Chauvin on behalf of the Appellant and finds that the requested variances have regard for the Provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and satisfies all four elements of s. 45(1) of the Act. The proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

37The proposed settlement was submitted on consent.

ORDER

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

(a) the appeal is allowed and the variance(s) to By-law No. 144-2003 as described in Attachment 1 to this Order are authorized, subject to the conditions set out in section 2 thereof; and

(b) the Tribunal may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order.

“A. Snowdon”

A. SNOWDON MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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 following variances to the Town of Milton Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 144-2003 (Rural) with respect to the Subject Lands are hereby approved, as follows:

   1. Variance 1: Subsection 4.1.2.2(ii) of Zoning By-Law 144-2003 is varied to increase the maximum permitted gross floor area (GFA) of an accessory building or structure on the Subject Lands to 871.6 square meters, whereas 93 square meters is permitted, for the accessory building identified as “Proposed Bank Barn & Studio” (“Building 1”) on the Site Plan attached as Schedule “A”;

   2. Variance 2: Subsection 4.1.2.2(ii) of Zoning By-Law 144-2003 is varied to increase the maximum permitted height of an accessory building or structure on the Subject Lands to 10.9 meters, whereas 5.5 meters is permitted, for Building 1; and

2. Variances 1 and 2 are subject to the following limitations and restrictions:

   1. the variances apply only to Building 1;
   2. Building 1 shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan contained in Schedule “A” and the elevations contained in Schedule ”B”, subject to any revisions approved by the Town of Milton in writing;
   3. any home occupation, cottage industry, or home industry may occupy a maximum of 93 square meters of Building 1;
   4. Building 1 shall not be used as a Place of Assembly, Place of Entertainment, or Place of Worship, as defined in Zoning By-Law 144-2003;
   5. any lighting installed on the exterior of Building 1 shall be warm-coloured lighting directed away from the remaining natural cover area.
   6. the Owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from Conservation Halton prior to issuance of a Building Permit; and
   7. the approval shall be subject to an expiry of two years from the date of written decision by the Tribunal if the conditions are not met; or if a Building Permit is not obtained.