Hena Kabir

The appellant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance required to permit residential development on a lot that fronts an unassumed public road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on an existing lot of record fronting an unassumed public road.

The municipality opposed the variance primarily due to unresolved liability concerns regarding potential damage to the road during construction, as the property was not part of an adjacent subdivision agreement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on a conditional basis, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's planning evidence over the municipality's circular liability arguments, but imposed a condition requiring the parties to resolve the liability issue within six months.

The applicants brought a motion seeking an extension of the lapsing date for a Draft Plan of Subdivision approved in 2010.

The Town opposed the extension, arguing the applicants had not used best efforts to clear conditions and that the plan should lapse to allow for greater intensification under current planning policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had demonstrated best efforts to clear conditions, noting that delays in servicing were partly attributable to the Town.

The Tribunal also found that the applicants would suffer prejudice if forced to restart the planning process, and that the Draft Plan continues to represent good planning and conforms with current provincial and municipal policies.

The motion was granted and the Draft Plan was extended to October 15, 2026.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to approve a site plan application for a six-storey retirement home within the legislated timeframe.

The primary issue was the Township's insistence on including a condition requiring the appellant to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with a neighbouring landowner for future permanent services.

The Tribunal found that cost-sharing is not an authorized condition under s. 41(7) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site plan without the disputed cost-sharing condition, noting the development could be serviced independently.