Jackie Denyes

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn sine die the site-specific appeal of Del Boca Vista Properties Inc. regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 573.

The appellant consented to the adjournment on the proposed terms, which would allow its site-specific development application process to unfold and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion and adjourned the appeal sine die subject to the agreed terms.

The applicant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a building addition to an existing accessory structure with increased gross floor area and height.

Prior to the hearing, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At the third case management conference, the appellant requested that a merit hearing be scheduled for the zoning appeal, as the related Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) application was delayed due to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry adding three First Nations to the duty to consult list.

The Township and an added party opposed, arguing that the zoning and ARA matters should be consolidated to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed that consolidation was appropriate and that it was premature to proceed with the zoning hearing while the ARA application remained pending.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until the ARA license is issued or denied.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four buildings.

The parties reached a settlement proposing 1,029 residential units, retail space, and new public streets adjacent to the Guildwood GO Transit Station.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan control for a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, 1956565 Ontario Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-week merit hearing to commence in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals, and scheduled a 12-day merit hearing to commence in July 2024.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting provisional consent to sever a lot, arguing the Committee erred by not including a tree protection condition.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to include a condition requiring a development agreement for tree preservation mitigation measures and associated security.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application, subject to the agreed-upon condition, had regard to provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to the revised condition.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a residential lot and for a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.95 metres.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed infill development was compatible with the neighbourhood, met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act, and satisfied the criteria for consent.

The appeals were allowed, the variance was authorized, and provisional consent was granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an application by 1851477 Ontario Inc. for a Class 'A' license to permit the operation of a quarry above the groundwater level.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of the Municipality of East Ferris and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as objectors.

The Tribunal directed the remaining self-represented objectors to provide an Issues List to the applicant, after which a Procedural Order will be finalized.

The matter was adjourned to a five-day merit hearing commencing April 29, 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 177-unit high-density residential development.

The threshold issue was whether the lands should be re-designated and re-zoned for residential uses given an existing oversupply of residential lands in the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the site-specific redesignation of the fully serviced, shovel-ready infill property was appropriate and an efficient use of under-utilized land, despite the oversupply.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to move forward to a full hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 573.

The Tribunal removed the party status of four unrepresented non-appellant entities due to their unresponsiveness.

Updates were provided on ongoing mediation and settlement discussions with various appellants.

The Tribunal scheduled a ten-day merit hearing to commence on December 2, 2024, and issued directions for the finalization of the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties reported that private mediation is ongoing and requested more time to resolve or narrow the issues.

The Tribunal deferred requests for participant status from adjacent landowners and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, scheduled a three-day merit hearing, and approved the parties' Draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 23-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in parking requirements, an increase in maximum residential density, and a reduction in the minimum rear setback.

The City took no position on the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of Provincial interest, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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 Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to two individuals.

The parties agreed to explore mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled via telephone to discuss a draft Procedural Order and potential hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2374868 Ontario Ltd. against the Township of Puslinch's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a vacuum truck soil and aggregate transfer and processing facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, directed revisions to the Joint Issues List to remove duplicative or non-jurisdictional wording, and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for July 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought to permit the transfer, storage, and processing of soil and aggregate materials from vacuum trucks for rehabilitation purposes.

The Tribunal deferred three participant status requests to allow counsel time to review them.

Due to the large number of anticipated expert witnesses and an unrefined issues list, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to scope the issues before setting a 15-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to approve a Site Plan agreement.

The parties requested a two-day hearing to resolve outstanding urban design and sanitary design issues.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and Issues List on consent to govern the upcoming hearing.