Ken Hewitt

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase the gross living space of an approved secondary dwelling unit from 89 square metres to 124 square metres, facilitating an increase from four to eight bedrooms.

The applicant's planner argued the physical footprint would not change and the intensification was appropriate.

The City's planner argued the increase constituted overbuilding and would negatively impact the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding the variance was not minor in nature and did not meet the four tests under section 45 of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal to adopt a requested zoning by-law amendment to permit the conversion of a single detached dwelling into an accessory structure.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal deferred decisions on several party and participant status requests on consent to allow the parties time to construct an issues list.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 21, 2024.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct technical errors in a previous decision dated August 22, 2024.

The amendment modified two conditions of consent regarding the submission of a registered plan for a road allowance and the payment of cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication.

In all other respects, the original decision remained unchanged.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that denied one of four requested minor variances to permit a 12-unit rooming house.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the City's Official Plan by providing missing-middle housing.

Despite neighbour concerns regarding density, parking, and privacy, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized all four variances.

The applicant appealed a non-decision by the Township regarding a consent application to sever a lot for residential use.

The Township subsequently supported the application subject to ten conditions.

The applicant contested several conditions, arguing they were duplicative of a recent site plan approval or unnecessary.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, modifying or removing several conditions, including the requirements for archaeological, natural heritage, and hydrogeological studies, as they were already addressed in a recent site plan approval.