A. Sauve

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by DRC (Markham) Inc. against the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with two 40-storey towers and nine townhouse units.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on November 21, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to permit a single detached dwelling, the Tribunal consolidated the three files on consent.

As the parties had made substantial progress toward a resolution, the Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by The Blue Meadows Inc. against the Town of The Blue Mountains and Grey County for failing to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to three others.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ONE Properties Limited Partnership concerning a draft Plan of Subdivision and a refusal by the Hamilton Conservation Authority to permit the relocation of a wetland for a proposed business park development.

The parties requested an adjournment to allow the appellant to commission a report on the wetland's hydrological features.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024 and a 15-day hearing commencing in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Township of King's refusal of applications for an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment.

The applications seek to permit the development of a single detached dwelling and accessory structures on private services.

The Tribunal adjourned a party status request from a neighbour to the next CMC and directed the parties to discuss consolidating these appeals with a related consent application appeal.

A further CMC was scheduled for January 9, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Infinity Development Group Inc. against the City of Burlington's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day merit hearing to commence in February 2025 and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application proposed redeveloping the subject lands with three 13-storey residential buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow City staff time to prepare an Appeal Report for City Council and subsequently draft an Issues List.

The Tribunal also directed that any Participant status requests be submitted prior to the next CMC.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit the outdoor storage of precast manufactured products and a future precast manufacturing facility on its lands.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed amendment, which includes a holding provision for the manufacturing facility and requires a landscaped buffer and sound wall, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the zoning by-law accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Huntsville's decision on a Community Planning Permit application.

The applicant sought to construct a boat launch and recognize existing structures.

The Tribunal ruled that the appeal could not be split and must proceed as a trial de novo for the entire application.

The Tribunal also addressed status requests, denying party status but granting participant status to the Fox Lake Association and two individuals.

A two-day video hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was issued.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the interior lot line setback for a new warehouse on an agricultural property used for a greenhouse operation.

The municipality did not oppose the appeal and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The variance was deemed minor and desirable as the interior lot lines would eventually be eliminated once a planned waste treatment facility was installed and the properties consolidated.

The appeal was allowed and the minor variance was granted.

The City of Hamilton appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to front, side, and rear yard setbacks, and an increase in maximum lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The variances were authorized subject to a condition that the development be generally in keeping with the submitted site plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed 29-storey building at 69 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, procedural deadlines, and the consolidated issues list for the 13-day hearing scheduled to commence in December 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city's denial of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities, agreed to separate the Site Plan Application appeal onto an administrative track, and scheduled a 13-day hearing for December 2024.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 560-unit residential community.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Following an uncontested settlement hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-Law Amendment based on expert planning evidence that it was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Official Plan.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved for the remaining draft Plan of Subdivision appeal, which was scheduled for a future hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by a ratepayers association against the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendment permits a 10-unit cluster townhouse development.

The Tribunal corrected the applicant's name, dismissed 13 participant status requests due to a misunderstanding, and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The Appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to render a decision on their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

The applications seek to permit a five-tower mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and Metrolinx on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a retail store on a rural property.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbour with a sewer line easement and participant status to a neighbouring institutional landowner.

The parties expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and a subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 588922 Ontario Inc. against the Municipality of South Huron's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit outdoor storage of precast manufactured products.

Two neighbours requested participant status, which the Tribunal deferred pending the submission of appropriate forms.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, with the possibility of converting it to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment to establish a secondary plan for a large master-planned community.

All parties except one landowner reached a settlement.

The opposing landowner argued the plan did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan due to proposed collector roads crossing the Greenbelt, and sought to have its lands excluded.

The Tribunal found that the approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) established conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and that the Tribunal should rely on it.

The Tribunal also found no planning basis to exclude the opposing landowner's lands from the comprehensive secondary plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the settlement plan in principle.

The appellant, an area livestock farmer, appealed a municipal decision approving a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted three new residential lots on a former gravel extraction site.

The central issue was whether the proposed development constituted a Type A or Type B land use under the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) I guidelines, which would determine the required setback from the appellant's livestock barns.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's summoned expert from OMAFRA, finding that the proposed use constituted a Type B use because the lots remained in immediate proximity to existing non-agricultural uses, despite the introduction of an open space buffer.

As a Type B use, the development fell within the required 637-metre setback, rendering the amendment inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and non-conformant with the Growth Plan and municipal official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law repealed.