David Harding

The appellant built several accessory structures on his corner lot property without authorization and subsequently applied for nine minor variances to permit them.

The Committee of Adjustment authorized six variances related to a shed and gate roof but refused three variances related to a canopy structure and lot coverage.

On appeal, the Ontario Land Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the City that the canopy structure variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act due to unmitigated massing and visual impacts on the streetscape.

The appeal was allowed in part, authorizing only the six variances previously approved by the Committee.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of consent to sever a residential property into two lots and associated minor variances to reduce the required lot frontage.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed reduction in lot frontage from 15 metres to 10.97 metres would significantly disrupt the character of the designated Large Lot Neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the City's planning evidence, concluding that the variances failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and the consent application did not conform to the Official Plan under s. 51(24).