Gail Ross

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the demolition of an existing legal non-conforming dwelling and the construction of a new, slightly larger dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which included a modest footprint increase and improved accessibility, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

Relying on expert engineering evidence, the Tribunal also determined that the municipality had relied on erroneous floodplain calculations, and that the new dwelling would be safely located above the critical flood level.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The Ministry of Transportation applied for approval to permanently close portions of Maltby Road West and Concession Road 4 intersecting with Highway 6 in the Township of Puslinch.

The closures are part of a larger project to convert Highway 6 into a fully controlled-access freeway and construct a new midblock interchange.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence that the closures are necessary for safety and operational reasons.

The application was approved.

The Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, with the Township alleging that certain issues raised by the appellants did not comply with the Planning Act regarding consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan.

The appellants argued that a motion on the validity of the Issues List would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address these disputes and directed the provision of updated policy changes.

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.