Zivko Panovski

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application and appealed certain conditions of a provisional consent to sever a property in an employment area.

The parties reached an agreement on the consent conditions prior to the hearing.

The sole remaining issue was whether two disputed site plan conditions, which required the applicant to monitor private wells on adjacent properties and provide a contingency plan, could be imposed by the City.

The Tribunal found that section 41(7) of the Planning Act provides a finite list of permissible site plan conditions and does not authorize conditions pertaining to works or monitoring outside the boundaries of the subject property.

The Tribunal approved the consent and site plan applications without the disputed conditions.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the construction of a detached secondary dwelling unit in their rear yard.

The variances sought to reduce the minimum side yard setback and the minimum width of the unobstructed access path.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert evidence that the proposed variances would result in massing, drainage, and access issues.

The Tribunal found the application failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and was neither desirable nor minor.