Bailey Chabot

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to permit an in-ground pool, enclosure, and pool house in the front yard of their irregularly shaped lot.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal to pass a zoning by-law amendment that would have permitted the conversion of an existing duplex into a fourplex on an undersized lot.

At the hearing, the applicant presented no land use planning evidence and indicated an intention to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence of the City's planner that the proposal constituted overdevelopment of a low-density residential lot and dismissed the appeal.