Jamie Robinson

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 Municipality of Grey Highlands appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the interior side yard setback from 15 m to 6 m for a single detached dwelling on an undersized lot in an agricultural zone.

The Tribunal heard competing expert planning evidence regarding whether the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the applicants' planners, finding that the Zoning By-law explicitly contemplates the proposed residential use on undersized lots.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and nine consent to sever applications to create 10 residential lots.

The applicant and the township reached a settlement, but neighboring property owners opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to provincial and local planning policies regarding natural heritage and lot creation outside settlement areas.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the development appropriately protected ecological systems, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and granting provisional consents subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a Village Commercial Resort Unit Complex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to convert the hearing to a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The applicants appealed the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and its failure to make a decision on Consent applications, to permit the creation of two new lots and the development of a wellness retreat centre.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the municipal Official Plan.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding rural and shoreline residential area and that environmental features would be appropriately protected through a 30-metre buffer.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a shoreline residential lot on Six Mile Lake.

The requested variances involved increased lot coverage and reduced interior side yard and building separation setbacks.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the sleeping cabin was compatible with existing residential uses, would not have significant visual or privacy impacts, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay's refusal of a temporary Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a fire training academy on a portion of agricultural lands for a three-year period.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed temporary use was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, as it would not preclude the long-term agricultural use of the site.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the Township of Tiny's new comprehensive zoning by-law, arguing that an additional 15-metre setback from the Regulatory Flood Line for boathouses did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Official Plan prohibited structures adjacent to Georgian Bay unless they were 'essential for boating purposes'.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's expert evidence, finding that while boathouses are useful for storing boats, they are not 'essential' for boating purposes.

The Tribunal concluded the zoning by-law conformed to the Official Plan and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to approve the establishment of a Muslim cemetery on 43.8 acres of prime agricultural land.

The applicant argued the cemetery was a permitted use under the zoning by-law and served a cultural need.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that establishing the cemetery was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal prioritized the provincial interest in protecting prime agricultural lands over the cultural facility provision, noting the applicant failed to provide a needs analysis or evaluate alternative locations outside prime agricultural areas as required by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The moving party sought approval of a settlement reached with the municipality regarding an appeal of the new Official Plan.

The settlement involved site-specific modifications to redesignate the subject lands to 'Neighbourhood Residential' and 'Open Space' to facilitate a draft-approved subdivision.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications had regard to matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The motion was granted and the Official Plan was modified and approved accordingly.

The appellant appealed the approval authority's decision to grant two consents to sever the applicant's property to create two new residential building lots.

The appellant argued that the existing right-of-way was not intended for vehicular traffic and that the new lots would overburden the access route.

The Tribunal preferred the expert land use planning evidence of the applicant, finding that the proposed consents were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, provided appropriate access, and would not create safety issues.

The appeals were dismissed and the provisional consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances required to construct a new two-storey single detached dwelling on a waterfront property.

The requested variances sought relief for a reduced front yard setback and a reduced shore-side setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicants' planner and coastal engineer.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The variances were authorized subject to conditions, including adherence to a Shoreline Hazard Study.

The applicants appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of a consent application to sever a rural residential waterfront lot on Commanda Lake.

The Board had refused the application on the basis that the lake was at capacity and that its guiding principles limited severances to once every 15 years.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' experts, finding that the lake was not at capacity based on current data and that the 15-year limitation was not grounded in applicable policy.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, concluding the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the retail sale and storage of docks on the subject properties as an accessory use to an existing commercial property.

The appellant argued the use was compatible with the surrounding area and could be regulated through site plan control.

The municipality argued the outdoor storage use was out of character for the central area and did not conform to the Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal favoured the municipality's planning evidence, finding the proposed amendment did not meet the legislative tests, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the replacement of a legal non-complying residential dwelling on Morlock Island.

At the case management conference, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan, noting that the development would have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellants appealed the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of 36 row townhouse dwellings.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is an appropriate infill project that has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms with the District of Muskoka and Town of Bracebridge Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject lands to Residential Type 4 Special – 38 Holding.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to adopt a site-specific official plan amendment, a zoning by-law amendment, and to make a decision on four consent applications to create new non-waterfront lots on a privately maintained road.

The applicant argued the lots would provide affordable housing for the local Metis Nation community.

The Township opposed the applications on the basis that the official plan only permits new lot creation in settlement areas or on recreational waterways.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the applications align with the provincial planning mandate to increase housing supply, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represent good land use planning.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the creation of three new shoreline residential lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which includes mitigation measures to protect wetlands and deer wintering habitat, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Township's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the Town of Midland's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 6-storey hotel and commercial uses.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested land use planning evidence that the proposed site plan represents good planning, subject to the approval of minor variances for height and loading spaces.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan, withholding its final order until the minor variances are approved and a site plan agreement is executed.