Robyn Carlson

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a Country Inn development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the new owners of the subject lands on consent.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled for January 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to increase the maximum height of an accessory building (a detached garage) from 5 metres to 6.5 metres.

The appellant presented no planning evidence, arguing primarily that he had previously been denied a similar variance.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and would have no adverse impacts due to vegetative screening.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the City's refusal to pass a requested Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a single detached dwelling on a property partially within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

At the second case management conference, the parties reported that settlement discussions were unsuccessful and requested a six-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the minimum flankage yard setback from 15 metres to 3.35 metres for a residential addition.

The appellant raised concerns about the size, height, and potential impact on sight lines.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance, relying on undisputed planning evidence that the addition complied with all other zoning requirements, would not create traffic safety hazards, and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference due to a lack of progress in appeals concerning a zoning by-law and official plan amendment for a country inn development.

Although the appellant and applicants had signed Minutes of Settlement, the City had not agreed and its proposed changes were ignored.

The Tribunal directed the parties to respond to the City's changes, initiate discussions, and report back by July 14, 2021, after which a settlement hearing or further CMC would be scheduled.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in its May 17, 2021 decision.

The amendment clarified that while the City asserted the subject property did not front upon an opened road allowance, the appellants disputed this fact.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the Darmar-Tamlin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the start of the hearing, both parties noted that the adopted report was missing several mandatory elements, including a watershed map, stamped drawings, cost estimates, and a maintenance schedule.

The Tribunal found that these omissions constituted a significant error that failed to comply with section 8 of the Act.

Relying on its broad powers under section 51(1), the Tribunal issued an interim order adjourning the hearing and referring the report back to the engineer with specific directions to revise it to include the omitted items.

The Tribunal also extended the appellant's time to appeal under sections 48 and 54 to cure any process defects.

A farmer appealed the assessment of costs for an environmental impact study required by the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (CA) for a proposed municipal drain.

The CA argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over it.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the CA because the CA acted under its own parallel regulatory regime, despite ignoring the Drainage Act processes.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to bear the full $49,944 cost of the study because it failed to properly manage the Drainage Act process and protect the farmer from unexpected costs.

In a preliminary hearing for an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and a local resident, and presenter status to two other individuals.

The Tribunal also confirmed the procedural schedule leading up to the main hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status from the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and two individuals.

The Tribunal granted the requests subject to general conditions, finding that the applicants had a genuine interest and would make a relevant contribution to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also confirmed procedural directions and the hearing schedule.