Kevin Duguay

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 failure of the Township and County to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a 16-lot residential development.

The appellants reached a settlement with the municipalities, resolving concerns about municipal water supply.

A neighbouring property owner maintained an objection regarding potential stormwater management impacts on his property.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion by the neighbour to extend the time for filing an expert witness statement due to non-compliance with the Procedural Order.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the appellants, the Tribunal found that the proposed stormwater management plan was appropriate and would likely improve existing conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan in principle, subject to finalization.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an existing small-scale shed within the shoreline setback on their seasonal recreational property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment that defined the structure as a 'marine storage shed' and established specific regulations for its size and setbacks.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

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 applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of a recreational dwelling on a vacant waterfront lot.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment that included a site-specific Shoreline Residential zone, a refined Environmental Constraint zone, and comprehensive environmental mitigation measures.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and environmental evidence, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

The City did not actively participate in the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-unit residential development.

The City took no position on the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and in keeping with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to recognize and permit the existing legal non-conforming use of a motor vehicle repair shop and to allow for a building addition.

The municipalities argued that land use compatibility concerns had not been adequately addressed and that mitigation measures should be resolved at the policy stage rather than the site plan stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies and that any impacts on neighbouring residences could be adequately mitigated through a robust site plan agreement.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments sought to change the designation of the subject lands from Commercial to High Density Residential to permit a 76-unit, 7-storey residential building.

The Tribunal heard extensive expert evidence on land-use planning, ecology, transportation, and engineering.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts and City staff, finding that the proposal represents an appropriate infill development that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and has adequate regard for environmental and safety concerns.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing triplex.

The refusal was based on the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority's position that the property lacked safe access during a regulatory storm event, relying on 2014 draft flood plain mapping.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 flood lines had not been formally adopted into the City's Official Plan and were therefore not determinative.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's engineering evidence that ground-truthed the model using a 2004 storm event, demonstrating that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Township of Carlow/Mayo that authorized setbacks for existing buildings near Environmental Protection zones and waterbodies.

Prior to the hearing, the Freeman appellants and the Township reached a proposed settlement to repeal the amendment, which the Chadband appellants did not join but whose outcome they supported.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, found that the amendment was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the County Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowed the appeals, and repealed the zoning by-law amendment.