Samantha Gatchene

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a large residential lot into four separate parcels for semi-detached dwellings.

The proposal involved creating three 'flagpole' lots with only 0.76 metres of street frontage, relying on a shared driveway and a Joint Use & Maintenance Agreement for access and servicing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed lots could not function independently or accommodate separate municipal services as required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal did not represent good planning and that a Zoning By-law Amendment for a Planned Unit Development would be the appropriate mechanism for such a shared-service development.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that denied one of four requested minor variances to permit a 12-unit rooming house.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the City's Official Plan by providing missing-middle housing.

Despite neighbour concerns regarding density, parking, and privacy, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized all four variances.