Gary Bell

The Lake Associations brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Our Muskoka, Miller Paving, and Elizabeth Lippa against the District's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the plan was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the District Official Plan, as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, dismissing Our Muskoka's appeal entirely for lacking the mandatory explanations and land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Miller Paving and Lippa appeals in part, scoping them to remove broad claims of non-conformity that lacked specific policy references.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit a second-storey guest accommodation addition to an existing boathouse.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed addition would have minimal visual and environmental impact, consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending site plan approval.

The applicants sought a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a rural property to a site-specific industrial exception zone to permit future industrial development.

The appellants, who reside on an adjacent property, appealed the Township's approval of the amendment, arguing it was incompatible with their residential use and inconsistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plans, and includes adequate special provisions and holding symbols to mitigate impacts and ensure compatibility.