Lesley MacDonald

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's decision denying minor variances for a front yard setback to facilitate a balcony and an interior side yard setback for an unobstructed walkway to an additional dwelling unit.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's Zoning By-law No. 2023-156, which rezoned their properties to a Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES-4).

The parties reached a settlement to apply a Residential Five Zone (RES-5) to the subject properties, permitting a wider range of low-density dwelling types.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement supports appropriate infilling and intensification consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted driveway width for a semi-detached dwelling from 3.82 metres to 5.2 metres.

The City opposed the variance, arguing it would result in excessive impermeable surface, dominate the front yard, and create safety issues by encroaching on visibility triangles.

The appellant's representative, a layperson, was unable to provide credible planning evidence to address the four tests under the Planning Act or provincial policies.

The Tribunal accepted the City's uncontroverted planning evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment denying a minor variance to increase the driveway width for a semi-detached dwelling.

The appellant sought a maximum driveway width of 5.2 m, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 3.82 m.

The City did not attend the hearing but provided a Planning Staff Report recommending refusal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide credible evidence to satisfy the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act or address provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was not authorized.

At a Case Management Conference, the applicant requested the consolidation of its appeal regarding a heritage permit refusal with its existing appeals concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for the same property.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation, finding it would be the most effective and expeditious manner to proceed without causing prejudice to any party.

The Tribunal approved a two-phase hearing process and issued a Procedural Order to govern the consolidated hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13 and 16-storey mixed-use building on lands designated Arterial Commercial.

The City and Region opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the planned function of the area and lacked adequate pedestrian and transit infrastructure.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed infill intensification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to permit the development of a residential care facility for at-risk youth.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to convert the case management conference into a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the modified variances subject to site plan approval.