Chris Jones

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to legalize the limited residential use (office, multi-purpose space, and sanitary facilities) of the second-storey loft of an existing detached garage on a waterfront property.

The municipality argued the use constituted a dwelling unit and would negatively impact the at-capacity Lake Trout Lake.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed use did not include bedrooms or kitchens, the existing septic system was adequate, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit two existing shoreline gazebos that did not comply with shoreline setback, maximum floor area, and maximum height requirements.

The Tribunal heard expert evidence on stormwater management and land use planning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner, finding that the gazebos' open design and location minimized impacts on natural vegetation and allowed them to co-exist in harmony with the surrounding settings.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for 16 seasonal residential lots on the shoreline of Pigeon Lake.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted 'infill development' under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The Tribunal found that the proposal met the common usage definition of infill development and satisfied all requirements for the protection of key hydrologic and natural heritage features.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the draft plan of subdivision and amending the zoning by-law.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to adopt a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a camper trailer for seasonal recreation on an island property.

The municipality and a local property owners association opposed the application, citing environmental and planning concerns.

Relying on uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Official Plan due to inadequate consideration of fish habitat, shoreline buffers, and flood proofing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought consent to sever a shoreline property on Lake Bernard to create a new lot and a retained lot.

The Central Almaguin Planning Board granted provisional consent, which was appealed by adjacent property owners.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal considered expert ecological and planning evidence demonstrating that the severance would not negatively impact the lake's water quality or sensitive Lake Trout habitat, particularly because the lots would be connected to municipal services, significantly reducing phosphorus loads.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.