M. Russo

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building at Bloor and Dundas.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions including the execution of a Section 37 agreement securing affordable rental housing.

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the municipality, which would permit a 337-unit model trailer park on a 38.6-hectare parcel of land.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that approximately 15 days were required for the hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing and directed the parties to finalize and submit the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for final approval.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential apartment addition.

The parties reached a settlement for a 9-storey mid-rise building addition to the existing rental apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended Zoning By-law.

Following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of York's decision to approve the new Official Plan for the Township of King.

The parties had difficulty agreeing on dates for the phase two hearing due to counsel availability and the potential for some issues to be resolved by Township Council.

The Tribunal scheduled a further status hearing and split the phase two hearing into two parts to accommodate counsel availability and allow parties to devise strategies for the presentation of evidence.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 54-storey non-residential building containing office, retail, and data centre uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the municipality's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions, including the securing of Section 37 community benefits.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment to relocate a Convenience Commercial Block within a subdivision from an approved site next to a central park to a proposed site further south along an arterial road.

The Tribunal evaluated the planning and economic merits of both sites.

While both sites conformed to applicable planning policies, the Tribunal preferred the appellant's evidence that the proposed site offered greater visibility, access, and competitive advantage, which would better ensure the economic viability of future tenants.

The Tribunal also found it more practical to re-purpose an existing sales pavilion on the proposed site rather than demolish it and rebuild nearby.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of three residential lots and the construction of three single-detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed consents had regard to Provincial interests and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they represented appropriate and desirable infill development compatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to reduce the minimum separation distance between a residential dwelling and an adjacent gravel pit from 70 metres to 12.2 metres.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient environmental assessment testing to demonstrate that the variance would not result in adverse impacts.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the Township, the Tribunal concluded the variance was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and failed the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario against the City of London's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 40-storey mixed-use development on a site containing heritage buildings.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and organizations, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Ajax's Zoning By-law No. Z2/19.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 678 dwelling units and a park.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not conform to the Growth Plan or Official Plan, and raised traffic and parking concerns.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming video hearing regarding appeals by the Ancaster Village Heritage Community against the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consent applications for the property at 15 Church Street.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties, and the issues list.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 38-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included reductions in podium height, tower floor plate size, and the provision of affordable housing units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

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

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal of the Township of King's new Official Plan.

The appellant sought site-specific modifications to permit a 48-unit townhouse development, which had been previously approved in principle.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to modify the Official Plan accordingly.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The parties requested an additional CMC to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, as possible revisions to the proposal were being considered.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a fourth CMC, directing the parties to provide the draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a consent application to sever a property to create a new residential lot.

The subject property contained a dwelling designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan as appropriate infill development that would not negatively impact heritage attributes.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 965 Chemong Road Investments Inc. concerning a site plan amendment application for 971 Chemong Rd in the City of Peterborough.

The appeal was filed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act after the city council failed to make a decision within 30 days.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and procedural deadlines.

The applicant sought consent to sever a surplus farmhouse dwelling from an agricultural parcel.

The dwelling had been demolished due to severe tenant hoarding and safety issues prior to the application.

The local Committee of Adjustment approved the severance, and a neighbouring farmer appealed, arguing that because the dwelling was demolished, it could not meet the strict policy definition of a 'habitable' surplus residence under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and approved the consent, finding that a strict literal interpretation of the policy would frustrate its intent, which is to protect agricultural lands.

The severance maintained the agricultural use of the retained parcel and the rural residential character of the severed parcel.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment to permit the extension of municipal water services to two rural properties.

The Tribunal added the applicants as parties, noted that mediation was unlikely at this stage, and scheduled a four-day video hearing.

The parties were directed to finalize the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.