Dan Stone

The appellants appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a pool cabana.

The requested variances included reductions in side yard setbacks and an increase in maximum lot coverage.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and were consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant brought a motion to resolve its site-specific appeal of the Township of King's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-053.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to add an exception provision for the subject property, which was previously zoned for rural employment.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modification was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and modified the zoning by-law accordingly.

The appellants brought a motion to approve a settlement of their site-specific appeals against the Township's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-053.

The settlement proposed site-specific zoning exceptions to permit additional on-farm diversified uses and to rezone certain lands to Greenbelt Natural Heritage.

Relying on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications aligned with good land use planning, conformed to applicable provincial and municipal policies, and satisfied all legislative tests.

The motion was granted and the appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the conditions of a provisional consent granted by the Town of Georgina Committee of Adjustment for the creation of a residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement regarding the conditions.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised conditions appropriately addressed all relevant matters under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, and the conditions were revised in accordance with the settlement.