Wayne Simpson

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to recognize existing structures and reduce the minimum setback for a sewage treatment system on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment, which establishes a building envelope for a new cottage and specifies the sewage disposal area, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The appellant appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of applications for Provisional Consents to sever a property containing two cottages into two separate lots and to create an easement for driveway access.

The parties reached a settlement requiring the installation of new private sanitary sewage systems.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed consents were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and had regard to the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the provisional consents were granted subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application sought to rezone a portion of the subject property from 'M2 – Industrial Pit' to 'M1 – Industrial' to permit a textile manufacturing, processing, and machining business.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment, which included a holding provision to address natural heritage concerns, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Town of Huntsville's new Community Planning Permit By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting site-specific modifications for two golf course properties.

The Tribunal found the modifications conformed to the local Official Plans and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and ordered the balance of the By-law into force, save for the lands of the remaining appellant.

The appellants appealed the Town of Huntsville's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that rezoned the subject lands to permit a single detached dwelling on a seasonally maintained private road.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendment was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because appropriate road infrastructure was not available.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the amendment did not conform to the District of Muskoka Official Plan or the Town of Huntsville Official Plan, as the subject lands constituted an undersized backlot without year-round maintained public road access.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law was repealed.

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 appellant appealed the passage of a site-specific zoning by-law that reduced various site requirements, including parking and setbacks, to permit the development of a gas station, convenience store, and restaurant on a brownfield site.

The appellant raised concerns regarding health, safety, and over-development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the uncontested expert evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning by efficiently utilizing serviced land within a settlement area.

The appellants appealed the passing of a housekeeping zoning by-law by the Township of Georgian Bay, which incorrectly zoned their retained shoreline property.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to correctly reflect a previous site-specific zoning amendment, allowing for a single-family cottage with increased setbacks and vegetative buffering to protect natural heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans, and allowed the appeal in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning changes.

The appellants appealed the passing of a housekeeping zoning by-law by the Township of Georgian Bay.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to correctly reflect a previous site-specific zoning amendment for the shoreline property, while adding specific setback and vegetative buffering requirements.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement by-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.