A. Sauve

The parties attended a Case Management Conference seeking directions on the implementation of a settlement previously approved by the Tribunal concerning a Community Planning Permit By-law.

The Tribunal determined a Motion for Directions was necessary and scheduled a one-day video hearing for January 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on a waterfront property.

The proposed variances sought relief for gross floor area, dwelling width, and building height.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, preferring the evidence of the appellant's land use planner.

The Tribunal found that the proposal satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it represented a reasonable expansion of a legal non-complying use, maintained the character of the area, and would not create negative impacts on adjacent properties.

The parties requested a short adjournment of a scheduled settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval applications for a 45-storey residential building at 10 Huntley Street.

The adjournment was requested because the draft instruments were not yet available.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an increased height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage on a property zoned Environmental Protected.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the structure was intended to house equipment for laneway maintenance and would not create negative impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on planning applications for a 45-storey residential building.

The parties informed the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal cancelled the previously scheduled eight-day merit hearing and scheduled a settlement hearing for November 19, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 29-storey residential building.

Following a successful Tribunal-led mediation, the parties presented a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed intensification appropriate for the transit-accessible location and consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the submission of finalized instruments and updated technical studies.

The Township appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit residential development on a property partially zoned Hazard Land.

The applicant argued that the Hazard Land designation was a mapping error and could be corrected as a 'technical revision' under the Zoning By-law without a formal amendment.

The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed no actual hazard existed on the land, the required boundary adjustment was not a mere technical revision and would change the permitted uses on the property.

Therefore, a Zoning By-law Amendment was required, and the minor variance application failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed two-storey single-family dwelling.

The subject land is identified as having natural heritage significance.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Participant status to a local residents' association.

A revised Procedural Order was approved, and a 15-day video hearing was scheduled for July 2025.

The appellants sought to demonstrate compliance with a previous Tribunal order requiring them to show that a proposed parking area on their property complied with the Zoning By-law, apart from specific relief granted.

The Tribunal found that the survey provided by the appellants was inadequate as it was an overlay created by a draftsman rather than a professional survey.

The Town and added parties requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal immediately, granting the appellants a final opportunity to provide a professional survey by a set deadline, failing which a motion to dismiss would likely be brought.

The appellant appealed the County of Prince Edward's by-law adopting the Wellington Heritage Conservation District Plan.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement modifying site-specific policies and guidelines to better differentiate between newer and older commercial areas.

Based on uncontested expert heritage and planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications satisfied the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to recognize an as-built dock and proposed boathouse with reduced side yard setbacks on Lake Muskoka.

The Town did not participate, but the neighbouring property owners (the Smiths) were granted party status and opposed the appeal.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant's expert, finding that the proposed location did not impede views, create safety hazards, or negatively impact privacy.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The appellant sought a minor variance to reduce the front yard (shoreline) setback to accommodate an already constructed attached deck addition.

The Township's Committee of Adjustment denied the application.

On appeal, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the variance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, it did not conform with the Growth Plan and failed the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a shoreline restoration plan or an official survey, to demonstrate that the variance was minor, maintained the intent of the zoning by-law and official plans, or was desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit agricultural uses on residential lands.

The self-represented appellant had not participated in creating the updated Procedural Order due to technical difficulties.

The Tribunal reviewed the appellant's proposed issues, finding most were not appropriate planning issues, and explained the legal test.

The parties agreed to the Municipality's updated Procedural Order and expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation.

A further CMC was scheduled to pursue mediation or set hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021.

One appellant withdrew their appeal, and another reached a settlement with the Town.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing for the resolved appeal and a further Case Management Conference for the remaining appellants, who are seeking to amend their development applications.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants to provide a new survey demonstrating that their proposed parking area complies with the zoning by-law, apart from previously granted relief.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on concurrent applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that City Council had made a confidential decision regarding a potential settlement, but it had not yet been released.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for submitting a draft Procedural Order to allow time for the settlement decision to be confirmed.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the City's amendments to its Official Plan and Zoning By-law concerning additional residential units.

The Tribunal granted participant status to six individuals and community associations on consent.

A draft Procedural Order and Issues List was approved, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled for December 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a 45-storey residential building.

The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day merit hearing to commence on October 16, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances to permit a two-storey detached accessory building with a second-storey dwelling unit on a lot serviced by a private septic system.

The Tribunal found that the variances for building height and rear yard setback were minor and desirable, provided the second floor is used only for storage.

However, the Tribunal held that permitting an accessory dwelling unit without full municipal water and sanitary sewer services did not conform to the Zoning By-law and was not minor.

The appeal was allowed in part, authorizing the height and setback variances subject to conditions prohibiting the accessory dwelling unit.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to sever.

The applications sought to permit the development of a single detached dwelling and accessory structures on a property containing natural heritage features.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments were approved.