M. Russo

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision dated December 24, 2021.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the Title of Proceedings and the Appearances List to correctly identify the appellant as 2772539 Ontario Inc. In all other respects, the original decision and order remained unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the upcoming 14-day video hearing for appeals by the Friends of South Shore against Prince Edward County's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments would permit a 337-unit park model trailer site.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for witness statements and document exchange.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 65 and Zoning By-law No. 16-265 regarding Transit Oriented Corridor Zones.

The parties reached a settlement to modify the zoning by-law for specific properties to allow minor additions and alterations to existing commercial buildings, and the appellant withdrew its appeal of the official plan amendment.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the official plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that included revisions to the building's massing, stepbacks, and unit mix, as well as a Section 37 contribution for affordable housing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to decide on a site plan application for a proposed 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies and maintaining the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to agreed-upon conditions.

Several parties appealed the Regional Municipality of York's approval of the new Official Plan for the Township of King.

During a phased hearing process, five appellants reached a settlement with the Township regarding site-specific and area-specific policies.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed modifications to the Official Plan were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to applicable provincial and regional plans, and represented good land-use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and scheduled a case management conference for the remaining Phase 2 appeals.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law amendment by the Township of Scugog, which rezoned the subject lands to permit a self-storage facility.

Prior to the scheduled four-day hearing of the merits, the parties requested an adjournment to proceed with a Case Management Conference instead, in order to scope and refine the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order with a defined issues list.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey addition to an existing four-storey residential building.

The proposed development would add 40 units, increase the maximum height and density, and reduce the required parking and amenity space.

The Tribunal found that the proposed intensification was appropriate for the transit-oriented downtown location, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence supporting a reduced parking rate of 0.57 spaces per unit without requiring a holding provision for Transportation Demand Management measures.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments sought to change the designation of the subject lands from Commercial to High Density Residential to permit a 76-unit, 7-storey residential building.

The Tribunal heard extensive expert evidence on land-use planning, ecology, transportation, and engineering.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts and City staff, finding that the proposal represents an appropriate infill development that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and has adequate regard for environmental and safety concerns.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variance and consent applications by the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham.

The applications sought to sever a residential lot into four parcels for single-detached dwellings and requested variances for lot frontage, side yard setbacks, and chimney breast projections.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal represented appropriate infill development consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The Tribunal authorized the variances and granted provisional consents subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the refusal of minor variances by the Township's Committee of Adjustment for additions to an existing legal non-complying dwelling and dock on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit an addition to an existing dwelling and recognize accessory structures.

The requested variances included reductions to interior side yard and front yard setbacks, and an increase in total floor area for accessory structures.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, adopting the expert planning evidence that the proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and represented good land use planning.

The appellants appealed the Town of Ajax's approval of a zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, a Ministerial Zoning Order was issued for the subject lands.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow time to determine if the appeals would be withdrawn or a settlement reached, given the new MZO.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an accessory building with an increased maximum area and a reduced setback from a watercourse on a rural residential lot.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence and a Natural Heritage Evaluation demonstrating no negative impacts on adjacent natural features, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellant erected a chain link fence on their property within a heritage conservation district without a permit.

They subsequently applied for a heritage permit, which City Council approved subject to a condition requiring the removal of a portion of the fence adjacent to a neighbouring heritage property.

The appellant appealed this condition to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the condition was not justified by the heritage policies, which were silent on rear yard fencing, and that the appellant's right to erect a fence for safety and access concerns outweighed the City's public realm arguments.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit temporary outdoor storage associated with an office use for small motor vehicles.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land-use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance subject to agreed-upon conditions, including a 42-month time limit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an application for an aggregate extraction license on private lands.

The application was referred to the Tribunal due to objections from local residents.

The self-represented parties had not prepared a Draft Procedural Order or Issues List prior to the conference.

The Tribunal provided instructions on party obligations, adjusted party and participant statuses, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to prepare and potentially engage in discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment No. 115.

The parties presented a revised draft Procedural Order and requested a phased hearing approach.

The Tribunal scheduled a 5-day Phase 1 hearing and a 25-day Phase 2 hearing, and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order with an Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipal committee of adjustment's decision to authorize minor variances for a new residential dwelling, pool house, and storage shed.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a revised design that resolved concerns regarding garage orientation, tree preservation, and a retaining wall.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that granted minor variances for shoreline setbacks but imposed an unrequested condition limiting the height of the dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve the variances without the height condition, subject to a vegetation plan and adherence to the submitted sketch.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances.