Jesse Auspitz

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 4-storey, 41-unit apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and increased setbacks, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications to permit the severance of a rural property into three residential lots.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots could be adequately serviced by private water cisterns, given the lack of municipal water and inadequate groundwater for wells.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding that cisterns are a viable and common water source in the area and that the proposed intensification is compatible with the surrounding rural character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances to facilitate the construction of a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would replace an existing legal non-conforming one-storey dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the proposed dwelling was compatible with the neighbourhood and the variances were minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a property in Mississauga, specifically contesting a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.91 metres.

The appellants argued the proposed two-storey dwelling was out of character for the neighbourhood and would create privacy and overlook issues.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the neighbourhood character was changing, the design mitigated privacy concerns, and the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.