Brandon Bradt

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 21-lot residential development.

At the hearing, the appellant withdrew the Draft Plan appeal after reaching a settlement with the Town.

A third party objected to the withdrawal and requested the Tribunal withhold its order on the ZBA pending a cost sharing agreement.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the third party's request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to mandate a private cost sharing agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the ZBA, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the Town's Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to reduce the minimum parking ratio for a proposed mixed-use development.

The appellant also sought variances for increased building height.

The Town did not oppose the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning and transportation engineering, the Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.