3 total
Zoning by-law amendment to convert boathouse to sauna approved as consistent with planning policies.
The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit the conversion of an existing boathouse into a sauna and indoor storage.
The municipality did not participate in the appeal, but a neighbouring property owner opposed the application, citing environmental and visual impact concerns.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, relying on a municipal planning report which concluded the minor height increase on the existing footprint would have no measurable impact and that the proposal was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the Official Plan.
Appeals allowed for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and consents to permit a wellness retreat centre.
The applicants appealed the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and its failure to make a decision on Consent applications, to permit the creation of two new lots and the development of a wellness retreat centre.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the municipal Official Plan.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding rural and shoreline residential area and that environmental features would be appropriately protected through a 30-metre buffer.
Appeal of zoning refusal dismissed without hearing as underlying road access and title disputes exceed Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The Township brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal without a hearing.
The appellant sought to rezone his property to permit short-term rentals.
The Township and an added party argued the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the property lacked public road access and the appellant had no agreements to use or maintain the private road traversing Crown and private lands.
The Tribunal found that determining the appeal would require resolving disputes over road status and land ownership, which are outside its jurisdiction.
The appeal was dismissed as premature.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.