Meaghan Rivard

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-unit townhouse development on a property currently containing a single-detached dwelling.

The municipality argued the applications were premature due to an ongoing Heritage Conservation District study and that the proposal represented overdevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not premature, as no heritage freeze by-law had been enacted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on planning grounds, finding that while the site was suitable for some intensification, the proposed density was approximately 70% higher than permitted and would cause unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing six minor variances to permit a rear addition and two-car garage on a residential property in London.

The appellant argued the variances for rear yard setback, lot coverage, and building depth were not minor and would cause a loss of privacy and usable amenity space.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the uniquely small lot justified the variances and that the integrated addition was in keeping with the neighbourhood character and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.