Stephen Brook

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's denial of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into four lots for the development of semi-detached dwellings with additional dwelling units.

A neighbourhood association opposed the development, raising concerns about intensification, compatibility, traffic, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding the property appropriate for infill development and concluding the proposal would not cause adverse traffic or stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent.

Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.

The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.

A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.

The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.