Rachelle Larocque

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 122-unit residential development on a brownfield site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conform to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the amendments in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval to permit a high-density residential development consisting of stacked townhouses and a mid-rise condominium building.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and site plan were approved.

The appellants appealed the Township's denial of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on private services on a 2.96-acre conditionally severed lot.

The subject property was designated 'Future Development' and located at the edge of the urban boundary.

The Township argued the development was premature pending a Municipal Comprehensive Review and that higher density was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellants' planning evidence that the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and would not impede future orderly development of the larger retained parcel.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve minor variances for the construction of a two-storey detached garage.

The applicant sought relief for maximum height, lot coverage, and rear yard setback.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances were minor, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to a lot grading condition.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment granting provisional consent to sever a property to create a new residential infill lot.

The appellant argued the severance would change the nature of the neighbourhood and not conform to existing zoning.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and municipal official plans, and represented good land use planning by utilizing existing infrastructure in a built-up area.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.