Victoria Lemieux

The applicants appealed the Township of Georgian Bay's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Consent applications to sever a shoreline property into three residential lots.

The Township and an adjacent property owner opposed the applications, arguing they would negatively impact the character of the area and create boating safety hazards in a narrow waterbody.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed lot creation was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood and that the addition of two docks would not impact navigability or congestion in the channel.

The Tribunal held that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under the Planning Act.

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.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a shoreline residential lot on Six Mile Lake.

The requested variances involved increased lot coverage and reduced interior side yard and building separation setbacks.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the sleeping cabin was compatible with existing residential uses, would not have significant visual or privacy impacts, and represented good planning.

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