N. Rodgers

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an expanded A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce a landscape buffer.

The City argued the restaurant's size and operational independence made it a principal use requiring zoning amendments.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the restaurant remained subordinate in scale and function to the gas bar.

The Tribunal held the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting the necessary variances without conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce landscape buffers.

The City argued the restaurant was a principal use due to its size and operational independence.

The Tribunal found the restaurant remained an accessory use, noting it occupied only 25% of the kiosk area and did not dominate the primary gas bar function.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning without the need for conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to recognize two existing housekeeping units and attached sundecks with reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local lake association and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Community Planning Permit Application to legalize an as-built two-storey sleeping cabin.

The cabin exceeded the maximum permitted gross floor area and building height.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the cabin, built on the foundation of a former garage, was well set back from the shoreline and visually screened by mature vegetation.

The Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the general intent of the Community Planning Permit By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the permit was granted.

The applicant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback and increase the permitted floor area for an existing guest cabin on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that involved partially demolishing the cabin to comply with the maximum floor area and amending the requested front yard setback to 13.0 metres.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application seeking retroactive approval for an oversized viewing deck and storage shed built within the required shoreline setbacks of Long Lake.

The applicant argued the oversized deck was necessary for a family member's accessibility needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's expert evidence that the structures posed ecological risks, circumvented proactive buffer policies, and represented overdevelopment of the shoreline inconsistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property into two lots and construct two detached dwellings.

The subject lands are located within a heritage conservation district.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed consent and variances had regard for provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the legislative tests under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the minor variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to permit the construction of three street townhouse units on a vacant corner lot.

The variances sought relief from front, rear, and exterior side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed infill development was compatible with the established neighbourhood and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, subject to conditions requiring a Tree Preservation Plan.