Mathew Halo

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to convert a commercial space into a third residential unit within an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents gentle intensification, fits the physical character of the neighbourhood, and meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application seeking to legalize existing residential buildings and accessory structures on a shoreline property.

The Township argued the application was incomplete and lacked an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Drainage Plan.

The Tribunal found that the Township's Official Plan strictly requires an EIS for development on adjacent lands to evaluate impacts on natural features.

However, based on uncontested expert evidence, the Tribunal found no unacceptable adverse stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in principle, withholding its final order until the applicant provides a scoped EIS and grading plans to the Township's satisfaction.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing cottage addition and accessory structures.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant brought a motion seeking an order confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal was not substantially different from the application considered by Township Council.

The Township raised concerns about the scope of the appeal and the lack of planning details in the original application.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, confirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and dismissed the applicant's request to strike portions of the Township's response based on alleged settlement privilege.

A two-day merit hearing was scheduled.