Ryan Mounsey

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property and build two single-detached dwellings, each containing three additional residential units (ARUs).

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested third ARU exceeded the maximum of two permitted under the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal held that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the planning instruments and were not minor in nature, effectively requiring a zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a minor variance to reduce the required residential parking spaces from five to three for a planned 6-plex.

The parties reached an uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance satisfied the four tests under section 45 of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions, including a development agreement to manage parking demand.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying consent and minor variance applications to permit the severance of a property into four lots for 16 residential units (four fourplexes).

The Township opposed the development, arguing it represented overdevelopment and required a 3-metre road widening conveyance.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding the road widening request unreasonable and concluding the proposed infill development was transit-supportive, met the four tests for minor variances, and satisfied the consent criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, variances authorized, and provisional consent granted.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit the development of two multi-storey residential apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant submitted a revised proposal reducing the height of the north building from 14 to 10 storeys and making other design changes.

The Tribunal found that the revised proposal, subject to a 2.5-metre stepback on the north building, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the final form of the zoning by-law is submitted and the Region of Peel approves an updated functional servicing report.