Marie Poirier

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to recognize an as-built dock and proposed boathouse with reduced side yard setbacks on Lake Muskoka.

The Town did not participate, but the neighbouring property owners (the Smiths) were granted party status and opposed the appeal.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant's expert, finding that the proposed location did not impede views, create safety hazards, or negatively impact privacy.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

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 South Bracebridge Environmental Protection Group appealed the Town of Bracebridge's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a private school complex.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, provided that the minimum buffer for wetlands and watercourses is increased from 15m to 30m.

The Tribunal also required the inclusion of a holding symbol that can only be lifted after site-specific environmental impact statements, including comprehensive amphibian and bat surveys, demonstrate no negative impacts on significant wildlife habitat.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement these amendments.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of a development permit application to permit an addition to a legal non-complying dwelling and to recognize existing structures within the shoreline yard.

The addition was intended to provide wheelchair accessibility to the dwelling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was minor in scale, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The requested variances and exceptions to the Development Permit By-law were authorized.

The appellants appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance application to permit a dock addition on their waterfront property.

The proposed addition required relief from the zoning by-law for deficient side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the application met the four tests for a minor variance under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Town of Huntsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a short-term rental accommodation (STRA) within an existing detached dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is zoned Natural Resource and the dwelling is a legal non-conforming use located within a flood-prone area.

The Tribunal found that the STRA use does not amount to an intensification or material change in land use, but merely a variation of the existing residential use.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the Town was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to recognize an as-built dwelling and sundeck and to remove a dock on a waterfront property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the redevelopment of a waterfront property, including a new dwelling, sleeping cabins, and a two-storey boathouse.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans, and allowed the appeal in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the conversion of the second storey of an existing garage into a private cabin and to legalize existing lot coverage on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence 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 appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to validate an already-constructed deck attached to a detached garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement requiring a smaller variance for accessory structure lot coverage (7.5% instead of the permitted 7%) and a development agreement to enhance vegetation buffering.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amended variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Township of Seguin's passage of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment permitting the construction of a large 'Sports Barn' accessory structure on a waterfront property.

The appellant argued the structure's size, height, and intended use were out of character with the shoreline area and more akin to an institutional use.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the planning evidence of the applicant and the municipality that the structure is a proper accessory use, conforms to the Official Plan, and will not have an adverse visual impact on the shoreline or neighbouring properties due to significant setbacks and existing vegetation.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances to legalize an existing aerodrome structure as a detached garage on a waterfront property.

The variances sought to increase the maximum ground floor area, lot coverage, and height.

The Tribunal found that the proposed garage, given its location and existing vegetative screening, would not dominate the natural environment or create a visual distraction.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a request for consent to sever a corner lot to create an additional lot fronting onto Stokes Drive.

The Tribunal heard from three land use planners.

The Tribunal found that the creation of one additional lot within an existing plan of subdivision in a designated settlement area can be determined through the satisfaction of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.