Derek Witlib

The applicants appealed the Township of Georgian Bay's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Consent applications to sever a shoreline property into three residential lots.

The Township and an adjacent property owner opposed the applications, arguing they would negatively impact the character of the area and create boating safety hazards in a narrow waterbody.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed lot creation was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood and that the addition of two docks would not impact navigability or congestion in the channel.

The Tribunal held that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a golf course maintenance building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised site plan drawings and conditions to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence from both parties supporting the settlement.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The Township of Georgian Bay brought a motion for directions regarding the Ontario Land Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the terms of a condominium agreement required as a condition of draft plan approval under section 51 of the Planning Act.

The appellant developers argued that an impasse had been reached and the Tribunal should intervene to resolve the implementation of the condition.

The Tribunal held that while it has the authority to assess the reasonableness of a condition and amend it, it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to dictate the specific contents of a subdivision or condominium agreement or to compel a municipality to execute such an agreement.

The Tribunal also struck portions of an affidavit from the record on the basis of settlement privilege.

The Township's motion was granted and the issue regarding the content of the agreement was struck from the issues list.

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's passage of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-046, which sought to regulate cannabis production and processing facilities by restricting them to industrial zones and imposing a 150-metre setback from sensitive land uses.

The appellants argued that the by-law effectively prohibited the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and industrial hemp in prime agricultural areas, contrary to provincial policies.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as it failed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and restricted normal farm practices.

The Tribunal also found that the by-law did not conform to the Growth Plan or the applicable Official Plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the municipality to repeal the by-law.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 73-unit residential development.

The core dispute was whether the Township could impose conditions requiring the applicant to convey third-party-owned lands containing existing stormwater management facilities to the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

However, the Tribunal held that the Township's conditions requiring the conveyance of lands the applicant did not own were unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

Instead, the Tribunal approved alternative conditions, including a requirement for an Agency Agreement to provide the Township with access and maintenance rights over the stormwater facilities.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to the revised conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of minor variances to permit a 3-bedroom basement apartment.

The requested variances were to increase the maximum floor area from 70 sq.m to 130 sq.m and to reduce the minimum parking space length in the garage from 6.0m to 5.7m.

The Tribunal found that the floor area variance failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it effectively created a duplex rather than a subordinate accessory unit.

However, the Tribunal authorized the parking space variance, finding the 30 cm reduction to be minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a contractor's yard for an excavation business on prime agricultural lands.

The applicants argued the use qualified as an 'on-farm diversified use' or 'home industry'.

The Tribunal found the excavation business was a full-scale industrial operation that was not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property.

The Tribunal held the applications were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Growth Plan or the County and Township Official Plans, and dismissed the appeals.