Michael Menezes

The applicant requested administrative approval of minor modifications to a Zoning By-law that was previously approved by the Tribunal in July 2024 for a 136-unit residential subdivision.

With the consent of the Municipality of Clarington and the Region of Durham, the Tribunal issued an Amending Order to implement the requested modifications to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated January 20, 2025.

The amendments added Chris Manning as co-counsel for the appellant, 10 Orchard Crescent Inc., and corrected a name in paragraph 4 from Allison A. Thornton to Eric Rempel.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential lot to create two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed a new comprehensive zoning by-law, and the parties reached a settlement amending the lot lines to comply with the new by-law without requiring minor variances.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the settlement, arguing the smaller lots were incompatible with the neighbourhood and premature pending a municipal drainage study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, finding the amended proposal was compatible with the new zoning standards and that stormwater management concerns were adequately addressed through the agreed conditions of consent.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create three new residential lots and construct two new semi-detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the neighbourhood association reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and compliant with the Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent and authorizing the minor variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the fourth case management conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled 12-day merit hearing to allow time for the review of a revised development application and for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the merit hearing, and scheduled a fifth case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Centre West Management Ltd. against the Township of Essa's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of 10 townhomes.

The hearing is scheduled for two days commencing January 13, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-unit townhome development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four neighbouring residents who submitted written requests.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing for January 2025 and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mixed-use residential development, the Tribunal considered a request for Party status by a local resident.

Despite opposition from the applicant, the Tribunal granted Party status based on the resident's commitment to retain legal counsel and call expert evidence.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 12-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan control to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised 113-unit development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The parties attended a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act concerning a proposed plan of subdivision for a mixed-use high-rise development in the City of Markham.

The parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement on the draft plan and draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a witness affidavit and settlement materials to proceed by way of a written hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from 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 permit a residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighboring resident, scheduled a ten-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the City's Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 41.29% to accommodate larger rear decks constructed in error.

The City did not participate in the appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the slight increase in deck depth would not cause undue adverse impacts on neighbours' privacy or light.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Richmond Hill's Parkland Dedication By-law 123-22 under subsection 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a hearing where expert evidence was received and all parties agreed to revisions, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised By-law 123-22, which incorporates amendments from Bill 23 regarding parkland dedication rates and exemptions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a proposed 18-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two adjacent neighbours without objection from the parties.

As the parties requested Tribunal-led mediation, no further hearing dates were set.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 177-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one additional individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence on October 22, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two appellants against the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a representative of an abutting landowner.

The Tribunal noted a settlement in principle with one appellant and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for the remaining appeal in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Chilocco Building Corporation and Mattamy (Monarch) Partnership due to the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a low-rise residential neighbourhood with condominium elements.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted Party status to Brimley Properties Ltd., an adjacent industrial landowner.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Official Plan Amendment 270, which created a process for assessing Ministerial Zoning Order and Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator requests.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to a second CMC because pending provincial legislation (Bill 185) and a newly adopted Town Official Plan could affect the appeal.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a four-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident without objection.

The parties advised they would be meeting to resolve issues and the City would seek direction from City Council.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for July 17, 2024, with a draft Procedural Order and Issues List to be submitted beforehand.