This appeal was heard by a three-member
board. The decision was to dismiss the appeal,
however, one member dissented from the majority decision. It involved the rezoning of lands from a single-unit zone and open
space zone to a zone to permit the development of a ten-unit apartment. The lot in question resulted from a consolidation.
This resulted in part of the new lot having three different zones applying to it. The R-1 single unit, on O-3 open space
and the remainder of the lot having already been rezoned to R-3 some two years previously. The previous rezoning was from
the O-3 open space zone to R-3. The town based its decision to allow the requested rezoning on the basis that the O-3 zone
was placed on the property in error. The land in question did not, in fact, have the excessive slope to which the R3 zone
was to have applied. They considered this to be a simple mapping error and rezoned the property as requested. They did not
amend the MPS maps which designated this area conservation, they simply rezoned the land. No one appealed this decision of
council. The appellants in this case argued that since the MPS maps were not amended the proposed developments is not within
the intent of the MPS. This caused the Board some difficulty. The Board found that the previous rezoning, from O-3 to R-1 is now in effect
since that decisions was not appealed to the Board. They then concluded
that for the basis of this current appeal they must follow the MPS policies
that relate to the rezoning of lands from R-1 to R-3 and not from O-3 to R-3. Having reached this conclusion, the majority
of the Board then went on to find that Council's decision to amend the
LUB and grant the rezoning request was consistent with the MPS and dismissed the appeal.
In the dissenting opinion, one Board member disagreed with the conclusion
of the other two members. The member felt that the previous rezoning should not have a bearing on this case. The fact that
it was rezoned without the appropriate MPS amendments being done only puts the legality of the previous zoning decision and
whatever municipal development permits that may have been granted pursuant to thatdecision in question. The dissenting Board member stated that as long as the MPS policies and maps "remain
unaltered Council has not power to rezone the land so designated for any residential use.". He would have then allowed
the appeal and reversed Council's decision.
This appeal resulted from the
approval of a development agreement to allow the developer to add an additional unit to an existing two-unit structure. The
appellants argued that the proposal to add the additional unit would not be appropriate give the lot size of only 3100 sq.
ft. The MPS has policies which enable the Council to consider such expansions through an agreement process
notwithstanding the fact the lot is undersized compared to the standard requirements for a three-unit building required by
the zone. The zone would have required 8000 sq. ft. The staff report recommended refusal of this proposal as the planner
felt it would negatively impact on the immediate neighbourhood. The board
agreed with the City Solicitor that the proper interpretation should expand the definition of neighbourhood and not limit
the consideration to just those dwellings adjacent to the proposed development. The Board
noted that you would need an agreement "for most properties in the Duncan Street area in order to have residential development
of any kind. This tends to support the view that a broader interpretation may be applied to this provision.". They
then concluded that development of this property as three units would be appropriate and consistent with the MPS. The Board then dismissal the appeal
and confirmed Council's decision.
This appeal was from the decision
of the Town Council to enter a development agreement with Scotsburn Dairy to expand their milk processing plant. The appellants
raised a number of grounds for their appeal many of which concerned the
process that Council undertook in the adoption process.
The Board found that it could only deal with those grounds that are within
the Boards jurisdiction; namely, whether the decision to enter the agreement is consistent with the MPS.
The Board reviewed the proposal
against the relevant policies contained in the MPS. They found that "the proposed development agreement is responsive
to the concerns identified in the MPS and that its implementation will reduce if not completely solve the on-going problems
the residents have experienced as a result of the presence of a dairy in their midst.". Finding that the agreement was
consistent with the MPS, the Board then dismissed the appeal.
The Board commented on the procedural flaws raised by the appellants.
It stated that "the Board has no authority to grant this appeal
on the ground that there were procedural irregularities in the process
followed by Council prior to adopting its motion to enter into the development agreement.". The Board
stated that it must "confine the scope of its review on an appeal
of a Council's decision to enter into a development agreement.". The Board
can only deal with the question of whether the decision is consistent with the intent of the municipal planning strategy.
This appeal resulted from a refusal
of the development officer to grant a municipal development permit. The zone in question only allowed existing dwellings
to be repaired, increased in size or replaced if destroyed by fire. The appellants wished to relocate the dwelling to another
area on the lot and then construct an addition. The development officer refused this request. The Board
having read the LUB provisions concurred. It found that since the by-law did not specifically state that a dwelling could
be relocated then it was not permitted to do so. It was only allowed to be repaired, increased in size or replaced. The
Board then dismissed the appeal.
This appeal resulted from the
decision of the Town Council to enter a development agreement to permit the addition of one extra dwelling unit to an existing
five-unit dwelling. The existing five-unit structure is non-conforming. The MPS contains policy that deals with the expansion
of non-conforming uses and policy that deals with the conversion of larger residential buildings to three or more units.
The appellants argued that the conversion policy did not apply as the house was already converted to five units. What was
proposed was an extension to a non-conforming use in their opinion. The Board
agreed with this position. The Board stated that this conversion policy
"does not apply where an applicant is not converting an existing house but is instead proposing to add a self-contained
dwelling unit to the rear of the building.". The non-conforming policy required, at a minimum, that the setback requirements
of the zone be met for any extension made to a non-conforming use. In this case, the addition would intrude into the rear
yard requirement of the zone. The Board thus found the decision to enter
the agreement was not consistent with the MPS policy. It then upheld the appeal
and reversed Council's decision.
This appeal concerned the refusal
of the Development Officer to issue municipal development permits for the construction of semi-detached dwellings. In 1986
lands known as Glengarry Development was rezoned from R-1 to R-2. The parcel was 5.9 acres in size. In 1992 the County adopted
a revised MPS and LUB. The revised zoning maps contained a difference form the original maps. The zoning boundary between
the R-1 zone and the R-2 zone was shifted from the centre line of the street to the edge of the street right-of-way. This
caused a shift in the opposite boundary line which caused four lots that were zoned R-1 to be shown as R-2. It was these
four lots that the developer requested permits for the construction of semi-detached dwellings. The County argued that this
was a mistake and the Board should use the interpretation section of the
LUB that deals with boundaries of zones. They argued that thezone line should be interpreted to follow the lot lines of the
original Glengarry Development parcel. The developer wanted the zone line to be determined by scaling the boundary using
the new zoning maps. The Board agreed with the County's position and
stated that the zone lines were "intended to cover the original 5.9 acre parcel.". It then dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the development officer's decision.
