Bita M. Rajaee

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Marsville Estates Inc. from the Township of East Garafraxa's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision to permit a 59-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for May 26, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 16-storey residential building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were close to a settlement and requested a further CMC date to provide a status update or convert the event to a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for January 19, 2023.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 172-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Save Our Rand Estate Inc. and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, and participant status to several community groups and individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order, and an eight-week hearing was set for spring 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant one of several requested minor variances for a newly constructed detached dwelling.

The refused variance sought a reduced rear yard depth for an uncovered porch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the irregular shape of the lot meant the majority of the porch complied with the setback requirement.

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

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Township's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.2 m for a new single detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence presented by the Township, the Tribunal found that the revised variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval applications within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal denied a participant status request due to non-attendance and lack of clarity.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the development of a 46-unit, six-storey affordable housing apartment building on lands owned by a church.

The appellant raised concerns regarding building height, overdevelopment, and parking.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed in part solely to correct a typographical error in the Zoning By-law Amendment regarding the maximum permitted building height.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit six dwelling units within an existing detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five local residents.

As the parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to identify the issues and set hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application for a mixed-use student residence development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed Site Plan and associated conditions satisfied all legislative tests under the Planning Act, conformed with applicable municipal and provincial policies, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal approved the Site Plan in principle, subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to create one new lot and construct a new dwelling.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence from both the appellant and the municipality supporting the applications.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the minor variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Township's refusal of consent applications to sever several properties.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a three-day video hearing for December 2022.

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to permit a one-bedroom secondary dwelling unit in the basement of their existing home.

The variances sought relief for minimum lot area and frontage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local development group and participant status to a neighbouring resident and a homeowners association on consent.

The parties were directed to provide a draft joint Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to a nearby developer and participant status to another.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for May 2023, and the parties were directed to submit a revised procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Belleville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a vending machine business as an accessory use on a residential property.

During the hearing, the applicant's own land use planning expert testified that the original application was flawed and did not conform with the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Parry Sound's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 14-unit residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the owner of the subject properties, Eco-Development Group Inc. The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day video hearing for the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of several pre-requisite conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for March 2023.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment refusal of minor variances to permit an increase in maximum gross floor area and lot coverage for the construction of a new cottage and use of an existing boathouse.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances to permit the construction of a seasonal air-inflated sports dome over existing tennis courts.

The requested variances involved building height, setback from the highwater mark, and development within a floodplain overlay.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the uncontested expert evidence demonstrated the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.