Eric Rempel

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.

The application sought to reduce the interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.61 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the application maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and was desirable, it failed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and was not minor in nature due to concerns about the maintenance of the structure along the lot line.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's denial of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into four lots for the development of semi-detached dwellings with additional dwelling units.

A neighbourhood association opposed the development, raising concerns about intensification, compatibility, traffic, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding the property appropriate for infill development and concluding the proposal would not cause adverse traffic or stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent.

The applicant appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a consent to sever a residential property to create one additional lot.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the proposal represented good planning in the public interest.