Stephen Bradshaw

The applicant appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming apartment building from 12 to 21 units through interior renovations.

The applicant also sought to reduce the minimum parking space width.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert planning and transportation evidence, finding that the proposed parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit was appropriate and that the interior renovations would not cause adverse impacts to the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions regarding parking layout and bicycle storage.

The appellants appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage.

The variances sought relief for exterior side yard setback, garage door setback, and driveway width.

The City opposed the garage door setback variance, arguing it would lead to illegal parking encroaching on the municipal right-of-way.

The Tribunal favored the appellants' planning evidence, finding that the potential for illegal parking was an enforcement issue rather than a planning matter, and that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 2.0 metres for a proposed single detached dwelling.

The variance was required by the Conservation Authority to maintain a 4.0-metre setback on the other side for shoreline access.

The Tribunal found the uncontested expert planning evidence demonstrated the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.