Stefan Szczerbak

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Community Planning Permit Application to legalize an as-built two-storey sleeping cabin.

The cabin exceeded the maximum permitted gross floor area and building height.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the cabin, built on the foundation of a former garage, was well set back from the shoreline and visually screened by mature vegetation.

The Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the general intent of the Community Planning Permit By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the permit was granted.

The Tribunal held a written hearing to consider a settlement regarding an appeal of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan.

The appellant sought site-specific exemptions to allow the creation of an additional waterfront lot.

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

The appeal was allowed and the Official Plan was amended accordingly.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit short-term rentals in a proposed residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement limiting the short-term rentals to 20 units in the first phase of development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies, supporting housing options and the local economy.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township of Seguin Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a 20-metre dock, where 15 metres is permitted.

The parties resolved their issues prior to the hearing, and the Township supported the appeal subject to conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the application satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and would not adversely impact neighbouring properties or shoreline character.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit two existing shoreline gazebos that did not comply with shoreline setback, maximum floor area, and maximum height requirements.

The Tribunal heard expert evidence on stormwater management and land use planning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner, finding that the gazebos' open design and location minimized impacts on natural vegetation and allowed them to co-exist in harmony with the surrounding settings.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard appeals regarding proposed Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56 for the Resort Village of Minett.

The parties reached a settlement on various aspects of the appeals, leaving one remaining issue regarding the maximum percentage of Resort-Related Dwelling Units permitted on RC3 lands.

After hearing expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settled Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved minor variances for a dock and sun shelter but required the removal of an existing boat canopy.

The Tribunal reviewed uncontradicted expert planning evidence and found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the temporary removable canvas boat canopy did not meet the definition of a boathouse or boatport, was therefore considered part of the dock, and constituted a permitted use.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to a shoreline revegetation condition.

The appellants appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment 49 and Official Plan Amendment 56 concerning the Resort Village of Minett.

The parties reached a settlement on all issues except for the maximum percentage of Resort-Related Residential Dwelling Units permitted on the RC3 lands.

The appellants argued for a 50% maximum based on previous permissions, while the municipalities supported a 30% maximum.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Official Plans are not static and the 30% permission was appropriate and justified through a fulsome public consultation process.

The OPAs were approved in principle on an interim basis.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and referred an Aggregate Resources Act licence application to the Tribunal to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal considered expert evidence on air quality, noise, transportation, and land use planning.

The Tribunal found that the proposed pit would have minimal to negligible health risks, would comply with noise guidelines, and that traffic impacts would be mitigated through road reconstruction.

The Tribunal concluded the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a reduced side yard setback for an existing boathouse with a rooftop sundeck.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed amendment, which recognizes a structure that has existed for over ten years, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to approve a site plan application for the construction of 40 new housekeeping units at an existing resort.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed concerns regarding sanitary sewage capacity and emergency services access through specific conditions of approval.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the site plan subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an existing park model trailer as a primary residential dwelling and to legalize an existing shed on their waterfront property.

The City had issued a zoning by-law infraction notice, classifying the structure as a park model trailer, which is not a permitted use in the Residential Estate Type 1 zone.

The Tribunal found that the structure was indeed a park model trailer and not a single detached dwelling.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new two-storey boathouse on a waterfront property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which included reduced lot coverage and height restrictions, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Lake of Bays, the Town of Huntsville, and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, supported by extensive environmental, cultural heritage, visual impact, and engineering studies, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions, including the protection of natural heritage features through conservation easements and the refinement of mainland parking and access facilities.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a dock walkway and an existing hot tub within the required setbacks on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the structures were unobtrusive, maintained the shoreline character, and did not adversely impact the natural environment or neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variance, finding that it did not meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal relied on expert planning evidence that the variance would result in inappropriate intensification contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which require a rezoning application and supporting environmental studies for additional dwellings in the waterfront zone.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Tribunal applied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, which seek to protect lake capacity by limiting development.

The Tribunal concluded the variance was neither desirable for the appropriate development of the land nor minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was not authorized.

The applicant sought a minor variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 5% to 5.5% to construct a dwelling, boathouse, boatport, and gazebo on a shoreline property.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variance, and the adjacent property owners appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variance, finding that the applicant failed to provide a required Site Evaluation Report and that the proposed development would have a negative visual impact on the shoreline character, thereby failing the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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 appellant appealed the passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that facilitated the redevelopment of a marina on Lake Rosseau.

The appellant argued the amendment was inconsistent with provincial policies, did not conform to the official plan, and would result in overbuilding, incompatible development, and negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would improve environmental protection through enhanced wastewater and stormwater management, maintain the character of the area, and represent good land use planning.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the municipal and applicant planners over the appellant's planner.