3 total
Appeal for minor variances to permit a two-storey accessory dwelling unit partially allowed.
The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying six of eight requested minor variances to permit a two-storey accessory dwelling unit over an existing detached garage.
The adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the appeal, raising concerns about proximity, privacy, and massing.
The Tribunal found that while two variances regarding distance between buildings and parking met the four tests, the remaining six variances regarding setbacks and height did not.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the neighbour's land use planner that the proposed built form was incompatible with the adjacent dwelling and would negatively impact the neighbour's primary living area.
The appeal was allowed in part.
Appeal allowed and minor variances authorized for a six-storey mixed-use development.
The appellant appealed the City of St. Catharines Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse a minor variance for increased density, while granting variances for lot area, front yard setback, and landscape buffer, to facilitate a six-storey mixed-use building.
The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting all four variances.
The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the official plan.
The appeal was allowed and all variances were authorized.
Consent and minor variances for lot boundary adjustment on agricultural lands refused as not minor.
The City of St. Catharines appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent and minor variances that would facilitate a lot boundary adjustment to construct a new detached dwelling and septic system on lands designated for agricultural use.
The applicants argued the adjustment was minor and for technical reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed boundary adjustment was not minor, took significantly more land than necessary for the technical requirement of a new septic system, and failed to protect agricultural resources in conformity with the applicable official plans and the Greenbelt Plan.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.