Stephen Fahner

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 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 minor variances required to construct a new seasonal cottage on a vacant waterfront lot.

The requested variances sought relief for reduced front and rear yard setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was optimally situated on the narrow lot, retained an adequate shoreline vegetative buffer, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to site plan approval.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to recognize an existing dock and boathouse width, and the side yard setback of an existing dock and boatlift.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a larger dwelling with reduced setbacks and a reduced septic system setback on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellant's planning evidence that the proposal would not create negative visual impacts due to significant vegetative buffering and that the upgraded septic system represented a net improvement.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to site plan control and other conditions.