Terrance Glover

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a residential lot and for a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.95 metres.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed infill development was compatible with the neighbourhood, met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act, and satisfied the criteria for consent.

The appeals were allowed, the variance was authorized, and provisional consent was granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application seeking to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock facilities to permit the construction of a residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality revised its position to support a partial reduction in the setbacks, while the appellant sought further reductions to maximize the buildable area.

The Tribunal authorized the municipality's proposed variances, finding they represented a balanced approach that provided a reasonable development opportunity while protecting agricultural resources and minimizing impacts on the adjacent farm.

The appellant's requested further reductions were denied as they failed to have appropriate regard for the MDS Guidelines and the public interest.