J. Denyes

A Case Management Conference was held following a settlement of appeals regarding a proposed subdivision.

The parties disputed whether shared or individual driveway culverts should be used, leading the City to refuse to clear draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal tentatively scheduled a written motion to resolve the issue and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

When the parties failed to confirm their intention to proceed by the deadline, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal released the reserved motion date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated July 4, 2024.

The amendment corrected the date of the Draft Plan referenced in the order approving the plan of subdivision.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with revised plans.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised applications were consistent with provincial policies and represented 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 of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

Prior to the hearing, two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Township requested a delay in scheduling the hearing on the merits due to proposed Bill 185, which could retroactively remove the remaining appellants' appeal rights.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 2024 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and to set hearing dates if necessary.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellant following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant argued that the appellant's motion to adjourn the merit hearing and the evidence presented at the hearing were unreasonable and frivolous.

The Tribunal found that the motion to adjourn was justified due to an incomplete municipal record, and that the appeal was based on valid land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct was neither vexatious nor in bad faith, and dismissed the motion for costs.

The appellant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted the redevelopment of an abutting boathouse.

The amendment allowed for an increased lot coverage and a reduced front yard setback to facilitate the construction of an at-grade deck.

The appellant argued the amendment would facilitate an illegal roof-top patio use and lacked necessary municipal servicing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the at-grade deck did not constitute a new use requiring municipal services, and that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a property to create one new lot and one retained lot for the construction of two single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and municipal official plans, and represents good planning.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 177-unit high-density residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Central Elgin and participant status to 15 individuals.

A 2-day hearing was scheduled to determine threshold issues regarding the appropriateness of redesignating and rezoning the subject lands for residential uses given the existing supply of residential lands and the planned function of other future development areas.