Joel Vines

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 38% to 39.8% to permit an existing garden shed to remain on their property.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.

The appellant, a board member of a condominium corporation, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance allowing the applicants to construct a deck with a reduced rear yard setback and increased lot coverage.

The appellant argued the variance would interfere with the condominium corporation's easement and restrictive covenants regarding maintenance access to a shoreline revetment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the enforcement of private restrictive covenants and easements falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.