Robert Walters

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of a two-storey boathouse and associated dock on Lake Muskoka.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which included reduced lot frontage and increased width permissions, was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

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

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's passage of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-046, which sought to regulate cannabis production and processing facilities by restricting them to industrial zones and imposing a 150-metre setback from sensitive land uses.

The appellants argued that the by-law effectively prohibited the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and industrial hemp in prime agricultural areas, contrary to provincial policies.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as it failed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and restricted normal farm practices.

The Tribunal also found that the by-law did not conform to the Growth Plan or the applicable Official Plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the municipality to repeal the by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development consisting of an 11-storey building and a 6-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments and the execution of a section 37 agreement.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's decisions regarding conditions of provisional consent and the denial of minor variances.

The applications sought to sever a single property into three residential lots, requiring variances for minimum lot area and frontage.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the consents and variances met all statutory tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable provincial and municipal plans.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents granted subject to agreed conditions, and the minor variances authorized.