Robert Brown

The applicant appealed the refusal or neglect of the Municipality of Leamington to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the temporary use of two boarding houses for 29 temporary foreign workers for an additional three years.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the temporary use until January 31, 2028, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot area per unit required to convert an existing four-plex into an eight-plex.

The City did not contest the appeal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a detached accessory additional dwelling unit (ADU) in the front yard of their waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that the Zoning By-law did not explicitly prohibit front yard placement and that locating the ADU in the rear yard was impracticable due to a 100-year floodplain line.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, subject to a 9-metre setback condition, concluding that it met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Town of Amherstburg's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that reduced the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 0 metres for a property in the Central Business Area.

The amendment was intended to facilitate the development of a five-storey mixed-use building, including a boutique hotel, retail space, and a restaurant.

The appellant raised concerns regarding prematurity, fire safety, traffic sightlines, parking, and loss of light and air flow to an adjacent residential building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County and Town Official Plans, and represents good planning in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, consent, and site plan applications to permit a 22-unit, 3-storey apartment building and the severance of an existing heritage house.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and in principle, finding the site ideally located for residential intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners over the Town's consulting planner, concluding the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County and Town Official Plans, subject to minor revisions to the lot line to eliminate an irregular notch.