Lanny Dennis

The applicant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback and increase the permitted floor area for an existing guest cabin on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that involved partially demolishing the cabin to comply with the maximum floor area and amending the requested front yard setback to 13.0 metres.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the demolition of an existing legal non-conforming dwelling and the construction of a new, slightly larger dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which included a modest footprint increase and improved accessibility, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

Relying on expert engineering evidence, the Tribunal also determined that the municipality had relied on erroneous floodplain calculations, and that the new dwelling would be safely located above the critical flood level.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a hobby farm on an undersized lot and to revise the definition of a hobby farm to be based on nutrient units rather than a strict animal count.

The Township argued the proposal amounted to a commercial farming operation unsuitable for the constrained rural lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal remains small-scale, complies with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies encouraging rural agricultural uses and local food systems.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a new single-storey boathouse.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variance to increase the maximum cumulative width of the boathouse met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized, subject to conditions including entering into a Site Plan Agreement for the retention and revegetation of the shoreline buffer.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a farm-related industrial facility for agricultural parts manufacturing and repair.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement relocating the development envelope outside conservation-regulated lands.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments authorized.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted the redevelopment of an abutting boathouse.

The amendment allowed for an increased lot coverage and a reduced front yard setback to facilitate the construction of an at-grade deck.

The appellant argued the amendment would facilitate an illegal roof-top patio use and lacked necessary municipal servicing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the at-grade deck did not constitute a new use requiring municipal services, and that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing three minor variances required to construct a five-storey mixed-use building.

At the hearing, the parties presented Minutes of Settlement resolving the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicants appealed the Town of Huntsville's refusal to amend a zoning by-law and its failure to make decisions on consent applications relating to island properties and mainland access points.

The applicants sought consents for rights-of-way over mainland properties to provide water access to the island properties, and zoning amendments to permit 'Waterfront Landing' uses and rezone the island properties from Conservation-Holding to Shoreline Residential Five to allow for the construction of one dwelling on each island lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and approving the zoning by-law amendments, finding that the proposals had regard for provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and were supported by uncontroverted planning and preferred ecological expert evidence.

The appellant appealed the passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that facilitated the redevelopment of a marina on Lake Rosseau.

The appellant argued the amendment was inconsistent with provincial policies, did not conform to the official plan, and would result in overbuilding, incompatible development, and negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would improve environmental protection through enhanced wastewater and stormwater management, maintain the character of the area, and represent good land use planning.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the municipal and applicant planners over the appellant's planner.