Jackie Lassaline

The applicants appealed the conditions imposed on their applications for consent to permit a lot addition and easements for existing utilities and traffic access.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised consent proposals were consistent with provincial policies and the municipal official plan, met the legislative tests under the Planning Act, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and provisional consents were granted subject to the revised conditions set out in the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a detached accessory additional dwelling unit (ADU) in the front yard of their waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that the Zoning By-law did not explicitly prohibit front yard placement and that locating the ADU in the rear yard was impracticable due to a 100-year floodplain line.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, subject to a 9-metre setback condition, concluding that it met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the interior lot line setback for a new warehouse on an agricultural property used for a greenhouse operation.

The municipality did not oppose the appeal and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The variance was deemed minor and desirable as the interior lot lines would eventually be eliminated once a planned waste treatment facility was installed and the properties consolidated.

The appeal was allowed and the minor variance was granted.