Mark Iamarino

The appellants appealed the Town of Fort Erie's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a four-storey apartment building with ground-floor commercial units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the revised amendments.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of two consent applications to create two new residential lots from an existing property in the Village of Queenston.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts on land use planning, cultural heritage, transportation, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lots represent appropriate modest infill that conforms to the Town's Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted evidence that the development would not negatively impact adjacent cultural heritage resources.

While acknowledging concerns about sight lines for the middle lot's driveway due to the road's steep grade, the Tribunal found this could be addressed through the required municipal entrance permit process.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted 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 appellant appealed the Town's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments that would facilitate a medical clinic and professional office development on a property in Virgil.

The appellant, who operates a nearby medical centre, argued the amendments were inconsistent with provincial policies, would remove needed residential lands, and would negatively impact existing commercial areas.

The Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the Region's Official Plan, and conformed with the Town's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's market impact study, finding a need for the proposed medical uses and no evidence that the development would cause blight or significant adverse market impacts.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a cottage rental in a Residential Development zone.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing and jointly requested approval of the variance.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.