L.P. You

The appellant appealed the refusal by the Town of Oakville's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance permitting a motor vehicle dealership and related uses on the subject lands.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve the variance subject to agreed conditions.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024.

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

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a public inspection centre as a home industry on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement to allow the variance subject to conditions limiting the use to the inspection of fire trucks and prohibiting repairs.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to add 14 dwelling units to two existing apartment buildings.

The appellant proposed changes to reduce the variances related to parking spaces.

The Tribunal ruled that the changes were minor and no further notice was required under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was granted to one individual, and a three-day hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Indwell Community Homes against the City of Sarnia's refusal of a minor variance application for a 5-storey affordable housing apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to GA Farag Properties Ltd. and Richard Chumko, and participant status to numerous individuals and organizations.

A second Case Management Conference and a four-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced number of parking spaces and undersized parking spaces to accommodate two additional residential units.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed variances failed to satisfy the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the City's expert evidence that the undersized parking spaces would cause safety concerns, encroach on the City's right of way, and fail to maintain the general intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised application that eliminated one variance and modified others.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, representing good planning and appropriate infill development.

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

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's conditional approval of consent and minor variance applications intended to permit the severance of a parcel of land and the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised applications and conditions of approval.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the statutory criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to authorize the provisional consent and minor variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to subdivide a rural property into two parcels for detached dwellings.

The City opposed the applications, citing concerns over noise from an adjacent sand pit and potential impacts on future aggregate extraction.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding that the proposed development would not hinder aggregate operations and that noise and groundwater concerns could be addressed through conditions of approval.

The appeals were allowed, variances authorized, and provisional consents granted.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit interior alterations to an existing apartment building, increasing the number of units from 11 to 20.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances, including reductions in lot area, landscaped open space, and parking requirements.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, noting the proposal would provide additional affordable housing without increasing the building's gross floor area.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the variances authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the municipality's neglect to make a decision on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to replace and redevelop an existing waterfront dwelling and garage.

Following a previous order allowing the appeals in part, the parties requested on consent that the Tribunal vary the order to implement the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request and varied the order to add the revised zoning provisions.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit a townhouse development.

At the Case Management Conference, the City raised preliminary threshold issues regarding the proper characterization of the development under the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion in writing to determine the preliminary issues prior to the three-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced combined interior side yard setback and an increased roof projection for a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised plans and conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the County of Simcoe against the Township of Tiny's Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application for two residential lots.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicants, approved the Draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a three-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to permit reduced parking and rear yard setbacks for the development of two semi-detached dwellings containing six units.

The Tribunal relied on the uncontradicted municipal planning staff report, which recommended approval.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they would increase housing variety and supply while utilizing existing public transit and infrastructure.

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

The City of Oshawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellant regarding a City-wide Zoning By-law Amendment that introduced regulations for social service establishments.

The City argued that the amendment did not apply to the appellant's property, which was zoned R2 (Residential), and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory precondition to appeal under section 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that the R2 Zone excludes the relevant uses and that the amendment's provisions do not apply to the appellant's property.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an additional residential unit above an existing garage with greater building height and lot coverage.

The Tribunal qualified a land use planner who testified that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal favored the appellant's evidence, finding that the application represented efficient use of the lands and met the four tests.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage.

The variances sought relief for exterior side yard setback, garage door setback, and driveway width.

The City opposed the garage door setback variance, arguing it would lead to illegal parking encroaching on the municipal right-of-way.

The Tribunal favored the appellants' planning evidence, finding that the potential for illegal parking was an enforcement issue rather than a planning matter, and that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a 10-unit low-rise apartment building.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the proposal aligned with provincial and municipal intensification policies, including the City's draft new Zoning By-law which permits up to 10 units in this zone.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an additional residential unit within an existing accessory building on agricultural lands.

The municipality argued the proposal was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' planning evidence, finding the applications had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the PPS 2024, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.

The application sought to reduce the interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.61 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the application maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and was desirable, it failed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and was not minor in nature due to concerns about the maintenance of the structure along the lot line.

The appeal was dismissed.