A. Cornacchia

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications sought to permit a seven-storey residential apartment building.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order on consent of the parties, who were working cooperatively towards a revised development proposal.

The appellant completed unauthorized site alterations, including regrading and tree removal, within a Key Natural Heritage Feature on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment refused the subsequent minor variance application.

On appeal, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances, subject to conditions including a comprehensive tree restoration plan and security deposit, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey, 216-unit residential apartment building.

The City argued the proposal represented excessive intensification and was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding the subject property is located in an area in transition and is an appropriate location for higher-density intensification under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area, will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the planning instruments.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Burlington 71 Plains Inc. against the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton Hills and participant status to Tom Muir.

The parties were directed to prepare a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a further Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 15, 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and entities on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft procedural order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for April 2022.

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 appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's decision to dismiss their minor variance application.

The application sought variances for minimum lot area and frontage to permit the construction of a one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit in the basement of an existing house.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law, were minor in nature, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to the condition that the unit be limited to one bedroom.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment permitting a gas bar use.

The appellant, an adjacent property owner, appealed based on concerns regarding the adequacy of a private sanitary sewer system.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order with amendments and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a 163-unit residential development.

The parties requested deadlines to either finalize a settlement or submit a draft Procedural Order for a merits hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update by January 14, 2022, with either a settlement agreement or a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal considered a request for an adjournment.

The representative for a newly incorporated community group seeking party status had unexpectedly resigned just prior to the hearing.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the community group time to retain new representation and finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County's approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 131) that permitted the creation of two residential building lots on lands designated as Agricultural.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a prime agricultural area.

OPA 131 was found to be inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) because it attempted to designate the lands as 'Rural Land' without establishing appropriate land use policies, and it improperly removed land from a prime agricultural area for residential lot creation outside of a settlement area.

The appeal was allowed and OPA 131 was not approved.

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's decision to dismiss their minor variance application to permit a basement apartment.

At the hearing, the appellants' agent, who was not a registered planner, failed to present sufficient planning evidence or call a qualified planner to support the application.

The Tribunal found it had insufficient evidence to render a decision but chose to adjourn the hearing rather than dismiss the appeal, allowing the appellants an opportunity to properly prepare and present their case at a new hearing.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and participant status to five individuals, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a dock constructed without a building permit.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, directed the parties to submit a draft Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a one-day video hearing.

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 appellant appealed the passage of a site-specific zoning by-law that reduced various site requirements, including parking and setbacks, to permit the development of a gas station, convenience store, and restaurant on a brownfield site.

The appellant raised concerns regarding health, safety, and over-development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the uncontested expert evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning by efficiently utilizing serviced land within a settlement area.