J. Ewart

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit two existing shoreline gazebos that did not comply with shoreline setback, maximum floor area, and maximum height requirements.

The Tribunal heard expert evidence on stormwater management and land use planning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner, finding that the gazebos' open design and location minimized impacts on natural vegetation and allowed them to co-exist in harmony with the surrounding settings.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The moving party, affiliated with Langmaids Island Corporation, brought a motion requesting an order that the 'Waterfront Landing' use defined in the Town of Huntsville's Community Planning Permit By-law does not prohibit construction access and commercial barging activities at its property.

The Town argued that the lack of a dedicated loading area prohibited such activities as it would obstruct required parking.

The Tribunal found that a plain reading of the by-law does not prohibit these activities and granted the motion in part.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference seeking directions on the implementation of a settlement previously approved by the Tribunal concerning a Community Planning Permit By-law.

The Tribunal determined a Motion for Directions was necessary and scheduled a one-day video hearing for January 22, 2025.

The Township appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit residential development on a property partially zoned Hazard Land.

The applicant argued that the Hazard Land designation was a mapping error and could be corrected as a 'technical revision' under the Zoning By-law without a formal amendment.

The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed no actual hazard existed on the land, the required boundary adjustment was not a mere technical revision and would change the permitted uses on the property.

Therefore, a Zoning By-law Amendment was required, and the minor variance application failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The appellants sought to demonstrate compliance with a previous Tribunal order requiring them to show that a proposed parking area on their property complied with the Zoning By-law, apart from specific relief granted.

The Tribunal found that the survey provided by the appellants was inadequate as it was an overlay created by a draftsman rather than a professional survey.

The Town and added parties requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal immediately, granting the appellants a final opportunity to provide a professional survey by a set deadline, failing which a motion to dismiss would likely be brought.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants to provide a new survey demonstrating that their proposed parking area complies with the zoning by-law, apart from previously granted relief.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The moving party, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, sought an order for costs against the Town of Greater Napanee and Keep Napanee Great following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for an asphalt plant.

Tomlinson alleged that the respondents acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and raising irrelevant evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals by the appellants concerning the respondent's Community Planning Permit By-law, Development Permit By-law, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments and redline revisions represented good planning and were consistent with the applicable planning regime.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amended planning instruments and delegating final approval authority to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Telephone Conference Call to address appeals by Langmaid's Island Corporation and Mitchell Fasken concerning the Township of Lake of Bays' Community Planning Permit By-law and a draft Plan of Subdivision.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the site-specific appeal from the general appeal.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List for a four-day Merit Hearing scheduled to commence on April 9, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to address appeals concerning a proposed 36-lot residential development on Langmaid's Island and a related Community Planning Permit By-law.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the applicant's site-specific appeal from a general appeal of the by-law.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day merit hearing to resolve the remaining site-specific issues, including the implementation of a prior Phase 1 decision and the placement of sleeping cabins.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal had previously approved the draft plan, but the appellant sought a redline revision.

The Tribunal directed a process whereby the proposed redline revision would be circulated by the approval authority.

If satisfied, the parties could request a revision to the Tribunal's order on consent; otherwise, a further Case Management Conference would be scheduled.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted travel and tent trailers on Rural, Shoreline Residential, and Limited Surface Residential properties with a reduced minimum lot area of 1 acre.

The appellants argued the amendment lacked proper environmental impact studies and did not conform to the Official Plan or Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's planning evidence, finding that the amendment did not create new lots or intensify land use, and that appropriate restrictions were in place to prevent negative impacts on water quality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision and related planning instruments to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

Following a Phase 1 hearing that established the principle of development, the parties reached a settlement on the draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed subdivision and conditions have regard to provincial interests, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal approved the draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a high-density mixed-use development on a former industrial site.

The delay was due to pending floodplain modelling by the conservation authority.

Prior to the hearing, the conservation authority confirmed the site could be safely developed, leading the parties to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new waterfront commercial use (tourist establishment/resort) on Kashagawigamog Lake.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Glencedar Inc. against the Township of Minden Hills' refusal of Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals/organizations.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order or settlement documents prior to the next hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the City of Peterborough's non-decision on a site-specific zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties reported progress on outstanding issues, including safe access to the site.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing and issued procedural directions for the submission of an issues list, witness lists, and a joint book of documents.

The appellant appealed the municipality's decision to approve a consent and zoning by-law amendment to permit a reduced lot frontage for a severed lot.

The consent appeal was dismissed due to the appellant lacking standing under Bill 23.

At a settlement hearing for the zoning appeal, the tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which removed a duplex as a permitted use, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

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

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order for a Phase 2 hearing regarding a proposed plan of subdivision and related amendments for Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal removed certain issues that attempted to re-argue matters decided in Phase 1, as well as improperly formulated issues from a self-represented party.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for seven days by video hearing.