Rian Allen

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 moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever, objecting to a holding provision and a condition requiring a consent agreement.

The parties reached a settlement to approve the applications with revised conditions.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the District and Township Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed a condition imposed by the Township of Muskoka Lakes on a provisional consent to sever a waterfront property.

The disputed condition required an agreement to use specific soils or technologies for phosphorus retention in the septic system.

At a settlement hearing, the parties jointly requested approval of the consent without the soil condition.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the condition unreasonable as it lacked clarity and was superseded by the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal approved the revised consent, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The applicants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a boathouse expansion and new dock.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert evidence in land use planning, aviation, and ecology, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, avoids critical fish habitat, and does not negatively impact the adjacent aerodrome.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the redevelopment of a waterfront property with a new four-storey dwelling, fire egress tower, and accessory building with increased heights.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development, which includes site-specific restrictions on lot coverage, setbacks, and natural area maintenance, is consistent with provincial policy and conforms to the official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amending by-law was approved.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new waterfront commercial use (tourist establishment/resort) on Kashagawigamog Lake.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

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.