Debra Walker

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula passed a zoning by-law amendment to add a definition of a 'Commercial Tour Boat Operation' and include it as a permitted use in all C1 zones.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee appealed, arguing the use was incompatible with the existing residential community along Big Tub Road.

Bruce Anchor also appealed regarding parking provisions, which were settled prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Citizens Committee's appeal, finding that the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest, as commercial tour boat operations have historically operated from the subject properties and provide important tourism and employment opportunities.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer an aggregate licence from the objector (the current licensee) to the applicant (the landowner) after the extraction agreement between them expired and the pit sat dormant for over 20 years.

The objector requested a hearing, arguing the transfer should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay $750,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licence.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has an economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to attach a condition requiring financial compensation to a licence transfer.

The Tribunal held that resolving financial disputes between private parties is not necessary or incidental to its mandate of managing aggregate resources.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer without conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced height and density.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a condition of a consent approval that required dedicating portions of a road traversing the subject lands to the Township.

The appellant argued the dedication was excessive and inappropriate given the topography, the road's dead-end nature, and a historical settlement where the Township had previously returned surplus road lands to the family.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the condition went beyond policy direction.

The appeal was allowed and the condition was revised to limit the dedication to the travelled portion of the road on the severed lot.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals by the appellants concerning the respondent's Community Planning Permit By-law, Development Permit By-law, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments and redline revisions represented good planning and were consistent with the applicable planning regime.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amended planning instruments and delegating final approval authority to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Lake of Bays, the Town of Huntsville, and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, supported by extensive environmental, cultural heritage, visual impact, and engineering studies, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions, including the protection of natural heritage features through conservation easements and the refinement of mainland parking and access facilities.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a severance of two adjacent properties to create three new residential lots.

The City opposed the application, arguing that the proposed lot frontages and areas were inconsistent with the established neighbourhood character and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicants' planning evidence that the neighbourhood featured an eclectic mix of lot sizes and that the proposed infill development was consistent with provincial and municipal intensification policies.