Drew Paulusse

The owner applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths for two proposed lots created by consent.

The applications required an extension of a road and raised issues regarding the applicable Official Plan policies, as the new Official Plan was approved shortly after the applications were submitted.

The Committee of Adjustment split 2-2 on whether the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Two members found the development premature and contrary to the general intent of the Official Plan regarding village expansion, while two members found it desirable and appropriate under the former Official Plan.

Due to the tie vote, the applications were deemed refused.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create one new lot for future residential development.

The application raised the issue of whether the 2003 Official Plan or the newly approved 2022 Official Plan applied, invoking the Clergy principle.

City planning staff objected to the application, arguing it would impede the future planned expansion of the Village boundary and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee of Adjustment split evenly on the application.

Two members found the application premature and inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the expansion of settlement areas.

Two members found the application consistent with the 2003 Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, noting it logically completed the existing community.

Due to the tie vote, the application was deemed refused.

The owner applied to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The City objected, arguing the proposal would impede future expansion of the settlement area and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee split 2-2 on whether the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plan policies.

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules of Procedure, a tie vote is deemed a refusal of the applications.