M. Arpino

The applicant sought minor variances for lot coverage, building height, and platform size to construct five detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances.

Neighbouring residents appealed, arguing the variances would exacerbate drainage and flooding issues.

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

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that drainage and grading are site plan matters, not land use planning grounds relevant to the requested variances, and the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on a rezoning and plan of subdivision application for a 390-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal heard requests for party and participant status from numerous individuals.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on all status requests to allow for further discussions between the parties and consultation with interested individuals, scheduling a second Case Management Conference for December 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's denial of applications for consent to sever and minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached residential dwellings.

The City did not attend the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the consent had regard for provincial interests and the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2006316 Ontario Inc. from the Town of Penetanguishene's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for August 23, 2022, and issued procedural directions for the filing of participant statements and settlement documents.

The appellants appealed the Quinte Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a permanent pile-supported deck and cantilevered dock on their property located on the Bay of Quinte.

The appellants relied on an engineering opinion that the structure would not negatively affect flooding, erosion, or conservation of land.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no effect on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, and the conservation of land.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposed development did not comply with Ontario Regulation 319/09 and was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal previously withheld its final order on appeals concerning a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a parking lot, pending the execution of a site plan agreement.

Having been notified that the agreement was executed, the Tribunal issued its final order allowing the appeals, amending the zoning by-law, and approving the site plan.

The appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a hot mix asphalt plant on a portion of their property.

The Tribunal found that the proposed split land use designation, designating the eastern portion as General Industrial, conformed to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined that the asphalt plant is a permitted use within the General Industrial designation.

Opposing parties argued the plant would cause adverse odour effects on a nearby food packaging facility and negatively impact the area's economic development.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the food facility was not a sensitive land use, the odour modelling was based on unrealistic maximum operating scenarios, and the plant's design met urban design policies.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved on an interim basis pending an Environmental Compliance Approval and site plan application.

The applicants sought to sever their waterfront property to create two new residential lots, which would be accessed via an existing right-of-way over the appellant's adjacent property.

The appellant appealed the Planning Board's decision granting the consents, arguing the right-of-way was restricted to pedestrian use and could not be used for vehicular access to the new lots.

The Tribunal found that while it lacked jurisdiction to determine the legal rights over the right-of-way, the unresolved access dispute meant the proposed lots lacked certain access.

Relying on the applicants' own land use planning expert, who conceded it is premature to create lots without access, the Tribunal concluded the consents were premature under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Town of Shelburne's failure to render a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit a 17-space surface parking area and landscaped garden on a vacant lot.

The parking area was intended to serve an existing long-term care facility located nearby.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development constituted intensification by increasing the use of the land, made efficient use of existing infrastructure, and conformed to the Town's Official Plan policies as an appropriate secondary use.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Town to amend the zoning by-law and approving the site plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 418 Waldemar Inc. against the City of Burlington's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 13-storey residential apartment building.

Following a previous decision directing the parties to file a Procedural Order with a refined Issues List, the Tribunal received the requested document on consent.

The Tribunal ordered that the submitted Procedural Order is in full force and effect.

The Tribunal previously approved a Settlement Site Plan for the subject property and withheld its Final Order pending confirmation of an executed Site Plan agreement and exemption from an Interim Control By-law.

The Tribunal received confirmation that the development was exempted from the Interim Control By-law, the Site Plan Agreement was executed, and necessary securities and fees were posted.

The Tribunal ordered that the Site Plan is approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Burlington's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey residential apartment building.

The Tribunal reviewed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed the parties to collaborate on refining the Issues List.

A ten-day hearing was scheduled to commence on November 29, 2021.

The applicants appealed the County of Brant's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to make a decision on consent applications to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled an eight-day merit hearing to be conducted by video, denying the County's request for an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal also approved the procedural order and issues list agreed upon by the parties.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in its May 17, 2021 decision.

The amendment clarified that while the City asserted the subject property did not front upon an opened road allowance, the appellants disputed this fact.