Savas Varadas

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a consent application and its failure to make a decision on a related zoning by-law amendment.

The proposal sought to create a new rural residential lot and a retained lot with no direct road frontage, relying instead on an existing registered driveway easement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to the intent of the Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning because the existing access arrangement will continue with no new functional impacts.

The applicant appealed the Township of Seguin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of a cottage and boathouse with increased lot coverage, gross floor area, and dock size.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the proposed maximums.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of a dwelling, boathouse, and dock.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposed development standards, including a reduced gross floor area and lot coverage, and required a site plan agreement to protect fish habitat.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal 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 appellants appealed the Township's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted travel and tent trailers on Rural, Shoreline Residential, and Limited Surface Residential properties with a reduced minimum lot area of 1 acre.

The appellants argued the amendment lacked proper environmental impact studies and did not conform to the Official Plan or Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's planning evidence, finding that the amendment did not create new lots or intensify land use, and that appropriate restrictions were in place to prevent negative impacts on water quality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted floor area for a sleeping cabin.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a sleeping cabin with a floor area of 1,235 square feet, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Township of Muskoka Lakes' refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and consent to sever to create a new vacant waterfront lot.

The parties reached a settlement that increased side and front yard setbacks for shoreline structures.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal, subject to mitigation measures for species at risk and deer wintering habitat, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the District and Township Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the refusal of minor variances by the Township's Committee of Adjustment for additions to an existing legal non-complying dwelling and dock on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that granted minor variances for shoreline setbacks but imposed an unrequested condition limiting the height of the dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve the variances without the height condition, subject to a vegetation plan and adherence to the submitted sketch.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of common element condominium.

The proposed development consists of 21 single detached homes on private services.

The Tribunal approved the settlement reached between the applicant and the District of Muskoka, finding that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable official plans, and represent good planning, particularly regarding the protection of natural heritage features.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would recognize a waterfront parcel and a separate main parcel as one lot for planning purposes, and permit certain accessory structures on the waterfront lot.

The Tribunal found that the two parcels were functionally separated by 1.5 km of public road and could not be considered one lot.

The Tribunal allowed a dock, stairs, and landings as principal uses on the waterfront lot to provide lake access, provided that on-site parking could be accommodated, but prohibited a boathouse and sundeck to limit the intensity of use and avoid the need for an on-site septic system.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal to grant minor variances for an accessory structure built without a permit.

The variances sought relief for maximum height and minimum interior side yard setback.

The Town did not appear at the hearing.

Based on the unchallenged expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.