The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase the permitted lot coverage for an accessory structure from 8% to 11.2%.
The appellant sought to replace an existing temporary structure used for boat storage with a permanent one.
The appellant's planner argued that a variance was not required under the zoning by-law, or alternatively, that the variance met the four tests.
The Tribunal found that a variance was indeed required, but agreed that the application met the four tests under the Planning Act.
The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to a condition requiring screening vegetation.