Spencer Putman

The appellant appealed the Township Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit reduced shoreline and slope setbacks for a newly constructed deck on a waterfront property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the slope setback variance, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as the redesigned deck would be located outside the erosion hazard area.

However, the Tribunal refused the shoreline setback variance, concluding it failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was an inappropriate use of the lands, and was not minor in nature due to unacceptable adverse impacts on the waterbody and natural features.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a dog kennel with reduced setbacks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner who operates an equine training facility, finding his anticipated evidence necessary for adjudication.

Participant status was granted to several neighbours.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a six-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that defined and regulated the use of storage containers on lands within the municipality.

The appellant argued the regulation of storage containers was ultra vires the Planning Act and overly broad.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment appropriately regulated land use and outdoor storage, conformed to the local Official Plan, and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance application to convert a cottage property into a seasonal recreational camp.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to site plan control and other conditions.

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 appellant appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed expansion was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and had appropriate regard for provincial interests.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the amendments and directing the issuance of the license in accordance with the minutes of settlement.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and a referred aggregate licence application, to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal addressed requests from several unrepresented objectors to revert from party status to participant status.

The Tribunal granted the requests, extended the deadline for participant statements, and scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a two-and-a-half storey rear addition to an existing three-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was incompatible with the stable neighbourhood, provided inadequate parking, and constituted overdevelopment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposal was an appropriate form of minor intensification that conformed to the Official Plan's compatibility and built form policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment.