Tracey Pillon-Abbs

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 applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit interior alterations to an existing apartment building, increasing the number of units from 11 to 20.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances, including reductions in lot area, landscaped open space, and parking requirements.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, noting the proposal would provide additional affordable housing without increasing the building's gross floor area.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the variances authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for increased lot coverage and reduced side yard setback to permit a covered patio and pool shed constructed without a building permit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the additions maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, noting they did not create adverse impacts on the neighbourhood or adjacent properties.

The appellants appealed the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey, 23-unit multiple dwelling on a vacant lot in the Walkerville Heritage Area.

The appellants argued the development was incompatible with the neighbourhood's character, citing concerns over massing, setbacks, shadowing, and parking, and argued the City ignored a previous zoning decision for single-family homes on the site.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area, provided an appropriate transition from a commercial arterial road, and met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, including heritage conservation policies.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing, arguing the appeal lacked apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants opposed the motion, intending to present evidence on heritage planning and infill studies, and to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the appellants had demonstrated an intention to bring legitimate land planning issues to a merits hearing and had not met the criteria for dismissal under the Planning Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the storage of fireworks on lands located in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that while public safety concerns were addressed by federal licensing, the application was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because the appellants failed to provide a rigorous assessment of need or a comprehensive evaluation of alternative locations.

Furthermore, the application did not conform to the Town Official Plan as the proposed use was not part of a municipal initiative and was not demonstrated to be inappropriate within a settlement area.

The appeals were denied and the application was refused.

The applicant appealed the Town of Amherstburg Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a second driveway on a corner lot.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, the Tribunal found that the variance maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part, authorizing the variance subject to conditions limiting the driveway's width and requiring a turn-around.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted an increase in maximum building height from 12.0 m to 15.5 m for a four-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the height increase was incompatible with the surrounding single-family dwellings and not respectful of the 'small town character' of Lucan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the revised proposal, which included increased setbacks and buffering, appropriately mitigated potential impacts.

The Tribunal concluded the development was compatible with existing development, respectful of the small-town character, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part only to implement the revised by-law.