D. Perlin

The moving party municipality brought a motion to dismiss the responding party's appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance for building height.

The municipality argued the notice of appeal failed to disclose any genuine land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the notice of appeal did not identify any tenable issue requiring adjudication under subsection 45(17)(a)(i) of the Planning Act.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of five minor variances required to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal convert the case management conference into a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

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