Daniel Kingsbury

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and the County's failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit a residential development including detached dwellings and apartment blocks.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed density was appropriate and the environmental features were generally adequately protected, the proposal failed to conform to the County Official Plan's mandatory 30-metre setback from a cold-water stream.

As no application to amend the County Official Plan was before the Tribunal, the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the municipality that permitted the development of a 78-unit, three-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with surrounding low-density residential uses and would cause privacy and overlook issues.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence of the municipality that the development represented appropriate intensification and that privacy concerns could be mitigated through the site plan control process.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement agreed-upon revisions to the by-law regarding setbacks, balconies, and landscaping, but was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming cottage.

The non-conforming status arose from having three dwellings on a single lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed enlargement was a modest intensification, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.