L.P. You

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish development envelopes.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that defined and regulated the use of storage containers on lands within the municipality.

The appellant argued the regulation of storage containers was ultra vires the Planning Act and overly broad.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment appropriately regulated land use and outdoor storage, conformed to the local Official Plan, and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the end date of the merit hearing from Friday, June 24, 2025, to Friday, June 20, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant appealed the refusal of consent applications to sever and create two additional residential lots in the Town of Wasaga Beach.

The Town supported the applications but did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement and local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consents subject to conditions, including a requirement for a landscape plan to address residents' concerns regarding tree protection.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal referred by the Ministry of Natural Resources relating to an application for a Class A aggregate license for a proposed pit.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a nine-day merit hearing, and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The applicant received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to sever and create one additional residential lot.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the decision under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, raising concerns about flooding, erosion hazards, and natural heritage impacts.

The parties reached a settlement proposing an additional condition requiring the applicant to obtain a permit from the Long Point Region Conservation Authority prior to the lot being created.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence, found the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the provisional consent subject to the revised conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for Phase 2 of a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal to include a 38-storey and a 21-storey tower, a privately owned publicly accessible space, and reduced vehicular parking.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the site plan drawings in principle, subject to pre-clearance conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Town of Erin's by-law designating a property as a heritage property.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 94-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 99-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the amending instruments and engineering reports.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a condominium development of single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the number of dwellings from 26 to 25 and modifying site regulations to address municipal and neighbour concerns.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal, amending the zoning by-law accordingly.

The Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variance and consent applications to create new residential lots in an agricultural designation.

The owner/applicant did not pursue the approvals and took no position.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances did not meet the requirements of section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they failed to maintain the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regarding agricultural lot sizes.

The appeals were allowed, the variances were not authorized, and provisional consent was denied.

The appellant requested a Case Management Conference to address a disputed haul route condition arising from a previous Ontario Municipal Board decision approving its quarry.

The appellant argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reopen the hearing without a motion, while the City argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and requested a motion hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant's request proceed by written motion to ensure due process and fully review the jurisdictional question.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 122-unit residential development on a brownfield site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conform to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the amendments in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated October 29, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to remove specific policies from the Town's Issues List.

The applicant brought a motion to separate and defer its site plan appeal from its official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals, and to strike certain issues from the issues list.

The Town brought a cross-motion to strike issues related to heritage demolition, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and to add issues regarding conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, finding that the site plan details were central to determining the appropriateness of the proposed drive-through use.

The Tribunal also struck the heritage demolition issues, finding it lacked jurisdiction until a heritage permit application was decided by the Town, and allowed the addition of the conformity issues.