Stephanie Matveeva

The applicants appealed a minor variance decision regarding the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans that removed a rear yard cabana structure.

Based on the uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions, including the protection of existing cedar hedges.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and associated minor variances for properties at 52-54 Indian Trail.

The proposal sought a lot addition to facilitate the construction of a detached rear garage and required variances for setbacks, roof eaves, and soft landscaping.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, approving the consent and the setback and roof eave variances, finding they met the statutory criteria and the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, the tribunal refused the soft landscaping variance, which proposed 2% coverage where 50% is required due to existing artificial turf, finding it failed to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and the four tests.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate lands to facilitate a compact mixed-use community.

Based on a settlement between the parties and the uncontested planning evidence of a Registered Professional Planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the North Oakville East Secondary Plan.

The amendment permits residential uses in the Trafalgar Urban Core 1 Area, introduces minimum density targets, and provides for a Community Park Area.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a 14-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal had previously approved the zoning by-law amendment subject to post-approval conditions, including clearance from Metrolinx regarding rail safety.

After Metrolinx cleared its condition, the City required technical changes to the zoning by-law amendment to reflect updated planning policies.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised by-law maintained the original development principles and approved the revised zoning by-law amendment without further conditions.

A case management conference was scheduled for the site plan appeal.

The applicant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the front and rear yard setbacks, an increase in lot coverage, and an increase in rear yard projection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing eight variances for a proposed detached house.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

Neighbours opposed the appeal, presenting expert planning evidence that the proposed building was not in keeping with the neighbourhood's character and would create undue negative impacts regarding overlook and privacy.

The tribunal agreed with the expert and neighbours, finding the proposal represented an overdevelopment that failed to meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on their respective applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision to permit residential developments.

Prior to the hearing, both applicants reached settlements with the Town.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, based on uncontested expert planning evidence, found that the proposed developments have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the applicable growth and official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments to implement the settlements.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a medical office as a home occupation and to allow one non-resident employee.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the variance for the medical office, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as it would operate within the policies of a home occupation without altering the physical character of the neighbourhood.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the variance for the non-resident employee, concluding that it did not meet the intent of the zoning by-law and would inappropriately commercialize the residential area.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a garage addition, a side and rear yard addition, and a new accessory pool house on a property containing a designated heritage dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on an amended application with slightly reduced variances for lot coverage and accessory building height.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended proposal respects the heritage resource, is compatible with the neighbourhood, and meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the amended variances were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve minor variance and consent applications for a residential property.

The applications sought to sever the property into two lots to allow for the construction of a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence provided on behalf of the appellant, the Tribunal found that the applications met the criteria under the Planning Act, including the four tests for minor variances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the variances and consent were allowed subject to conditions.