Stephen Watt

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbours on consent.

The parties advised they were close to a settlement and requested a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day settlement hearing and directed the parties' planners to review and consider the participants' statements in their planning reports.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted height for an accessory building (a studio built atop an existing garage) from 5.0 metres to 6.65 metres.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policy and conforming to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized.

The appellants appealed the passing of a housekeeping zoning by-law by the Township of Georgian Bay, which incorrectly zoned their retained shoreline property.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to correctly reflect a previous site-specific zoning amendment, allowing for a single-family cottage with increased setbacks and vegetative buffering to protect natural heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans, and allowed the appeal in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning changes.

The appellants appealed the passing of a housekeeping zoning by-law by the Township of Georgian Bay.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to correctly reflect a previous site-specific zoning amendment for the shoreline property, while adding specific setback and vegetative buffering requirements.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement by-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant sought to sever six new residential lots on Edgecliff Crescent in Garson.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of the consent applications, arguing that the development should proceed by way of a plan of subdivision due to insufficient fire flow in the area and the piecemeal nature of the development.

The Tribunal found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the consent applications represented proper and orderly development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part solely to add a condition requiring the implementation of an engineered solution to address the fire flow insufficiency, ensuring the health and safety of residents.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2152900 Ontario Inc. for a proposed 21-lot plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment in the Town of Huntsville, following the municipalities' failure to make decisions within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a draft Procedural Order, Issues List, and potential settlement.