Jenna Morley

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated December 5, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Attachment 1 of the original decision was removed and replaced.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the construction of an inground swimming pool in the rear yard, requiring a reduction in the rear yard setback.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and submitted a revised application that shifted the pool to avoid tree removal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent and zoning by-law amendment application to create a new rural residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a revised wetland buffer and a reduced minimum distance separation setback from a nearby barn.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law 24-024.

Settlement discussions were ongoing for some appeals, while others were deferred pending a related review application.

A request for party status by Concerned Citizens of King Township and Save The Oak Ridges Moraine was opposed and deferred.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 2025.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of up to 290 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement that increased setbacks from Collins Creek and removed single-detached dwellings in favour of townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by four landowners against the Township of King's new comprehensive Zoning By-Law 24-028.

The parties agreed to categorize the grounds of appeal into three main groups, with some issues to be deferred pending the outcome of a related jurisdictional review in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow the parties further time to scope the issues, potentially resolve minor site-specific corrections, and address pending party status requests from two citizens' groups.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert an existing detached garage into an additional residential unit.

The proposal required variances for parking, walkway access, interior setback, lot coverage, and fencing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence and minutes of settlement with the City, the Tribunal found the variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they are exploring Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if the matter is not settled.

The Kingston Home Builders Association appealed the City of Kingston's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-62, specifically challenging minimum density provisions and maximum bedroom limits.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce minimum densities in certain exception zones to better align with the prevailing neighbourhood character and secondary plan permissions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, allowed the appeal, and amended the zoning by-law accordingly.

The City of Kingston and the Kingston Home Builders Association brought motions to confirm that Official Plan Amendment No. 82 and Zoning By-law No. 2022-62 came into effect on their respective statutory dates, save for specific provisions and properties subject to site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence and ordered that the instruments are in full force and effect, with the specified exceptions.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-unit dwelling with modified performance standards, including reduced parking requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it promotes residential intensification in an appropriate location.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application to sever a residential property into two lots.

The City opposed the severance, arguing that the reduced lot frontages would destabilize the neighbourhood and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposed lots were compatible with the eclectic lot fabric of the surrounding area, which included several narrow lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.