D. Arnold

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CSG Limited Partnership against the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for an industrial development.

The Tribunal granted Party status to Stremma (St. George) GP Inc. for the zoning appeal.

Due to an interim control by-law and the lack of a draft Issues List, the Tribunal declined to set hearing dates and scheduled a second CMC, directing the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement hearing and the Tribunal's prior approval in principle, the parties advised that all prerequisite matters were satisfied.

The Tribunal issued a Final Order amending the applicable zoning by-laws, including provisions for a holding symbol and temporary uses.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building and townhouses.

At this second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and confirmed the scheduling of a 10-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Wilson St. Ancaster Inc. against the City of Hamilton's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an eight-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Ancaster Village Heritage Community and a neighbouring resident on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved, and a ten-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on July 24, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to one adjacent property owner and participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A second CMC was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and clarify the specific properties subject to the appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the appellant against the municipality regarding a shoreline preservation zoning by-law.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the summary of dates, parties and participants, issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Shoreline Preservation By-law passed by the Municipality of Hastings Highlands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 47 individuals on consent of the parties.

The parties were directed to confer on a revised draft Procedural Order and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

An eight-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 2023.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed two 18-storey residential building development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, granted participant status to a former party on consent, and scheduled a nine-day video hearing on the merits for September 2023.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference concerning appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 28-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner and participant status to several neighbouring property owners and tenants on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the City to obtain instructions from Council before finalizing the Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 9-storey mixed-use building.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of technical conditions.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that included a 6.0 metre Maximum Front Yard Setback for a proposed seniors-oriented mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to remove the setback requirement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment No. 40 and related Zoning By-law Amendments concerning infill and replacement housing.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of appeals by Centreville Homes.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the remaining parties and scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on July 17, 2023.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient affordable housing units and placed a time limit on their provision.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate the affordability of housing units or to unilaterally amend a voluntary section 37 density bonusing agreement between the municipality and the developer.

As the inclusionary zoning provisions did not apply to this application, the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could grant the requested relief.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a proposed 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting property owner on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence on July 10, 2023, scheduled a Telephone Case Conference for May 16, 2023, and approved a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 10-storey development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 18-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant and party status to several local residents who attended the hearing and raised land use planning concerns.

Status requests from individuals who failed to attend were denied.

The Tribunal ordered the new parties to submit their issues lists and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a below grade entrance and reduced side yard setback for a secondary dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with an amended side yard setback.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to a site plan condition, declining to impose enforcement-related conditions requested by the parties.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

The City did not actively participate in the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-unit dwelling with modified performance standards, including reduced parking requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it promotes residential intensification in an appropriate location.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The appellant appealed the City of Kenora's passage of official plan and zoning by-law amendments intended to convert the western half of Central Park into residential development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the City's Official Plan, as they failed to adequately protect necessary parkland and open space.

Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the proposed sensitive residential land use would be compatible with a nearby railyard facility, and inappropriately attempted to defer necessary noise and compatibility studies to the site plan approval stage.

The appeals were allowed and the by-law was repealed.