Paul Kulyk

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a new two-storey replacement dwelling.

Following positive dialogue, the application was amended to reduce the number of variances from eight to five, repositioning the garage and driveway.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended variances for front yard setbacks, garage width, and sight triangle met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the amended variances were authorized subject to the condition that the dwelling be constructed substantially in accordance with the revised plans.

The applicant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for minor variances and consent to sever a vacant corner lot to create two residential lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed infill development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, concluding that the proposed lots and dwellings are compatible with the character of the established neighbourhood.

The appellants appealed the Township of King's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and the conditions imposed on a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 51-lot residential development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendments and the Draft Plan of Subdivision in principle, subject to conditions.