A. Clutterbuck

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increase in density from 240 to 254 units in an approved 27-storey apartment building.

The City of Burlington supported the application.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it provided gentle intensification with no exterior changes to the building and no unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a proposed four-storey retirement home.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the conservation authority, and two abutting neighbours.

A request for party status by another neighbour was deferred to the next CMC.

Participant status was granted to an abutting condominium corporation.

The Tribunal set dates for the exchange of issues lists, a second CMC, and a nine-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Infinity Development Group against the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for an 11-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton on consent.

The Tribunal also issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning and Appeal Tribunal that approved an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment permitting the expansion of a casino.

The moving parties argued the Tribunal erred in law by allowing a 'rolling hold' under s. 36 of the Planning Act and by denying procedural fairness when it imposed time limits on evidence after the hearing had commenced.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Tribunal's interpretation of s. 36 and found the procedural fairness issue merited attention.

Leave to appeal was granted on both issues.