Edward B. Veldboom

The District Municipality of Muskoka brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the appellant regarding the lapsing of a draft plan of subdivision.

The appellant had requested an extension of the lapsing date, which the District did not grant, leading the appellant to appeal under section 51(48) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that subsection 51(33) enables but does not oblige an approval authority to extend a lapsing date, and there is no statutory right of appeal from a decision not to extend.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

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 applicant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever, objecting to a holding provision and a condition requiring a consent agreement.

The parties reached a settlement to approve the applications with revised conditions.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the District and Township Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's refusal of a consent application to create one new lot on a property subject to an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal determined that scheduling a hearing on the merits was premature due to a related ongoing appeal regarding the Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow the parties to update the Tribunal on the related appeal or potentially convert the conference to a settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to create one new lot.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised of a dispute regarding whether the underlying Draft Plan of Subdivision had lapsed, which the applicant had separately appealed to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The Tribunal found that scheduling a hearing was premature given the uncertainty surrounding the subdivision appeal, which could impact the positions of the Town and the District.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to update the Tribunal or present a settlement.

The applicant appealed the conditions of draft plan approval for an 18-lot residential subdivision in the Township of Oro-Medonte.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the disputed conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's partial approval of a zoning by-law amendment intended to permit a 'Bruncheonette' and other accessory commercial uses on her residential property, along with reduced parking and loading standards.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the full requested amendment was consistent with provincial policies and the official plan, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the by-law to implement the requested performance standards.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a property from residential to light industrial for warehousing and cold storage.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to adopt a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a camper trailer for seasonal recreation on an island property.

The municipality and a local property owners association opposed the application, citing environmental and planning concerns.

Relying on uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Official Plan due to inadequate consideration of fish habitat, shoreline buffers, and flood proofing.

The appeal was dismissed.