N.P. Robinson

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 54-unit residential development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, optimizes the use of land and infrastructure, and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and satisfies the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as an aggregate license, to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

The municipality and local residents opposed the expansion, raising concerns about noise, air quality, blasting (specifically flyrock), traffic safety, and social impacts.

The Tribunal evaluated expert evidence and found that the proposed expansion, with its integrated mitigation and monitoring measures, would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal rejected the objectors' request for a fixed flyrock exclusion zone and found the applicant's proposed traffic safety protocols sufficient.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and license were approved in principle.

The appellant shooting range appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit a single detached dwelling on an undersized agricultural lot across the street.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variances.

The tribunal found that the proposed modification to the definition of 'Farm Dwelling' could not be authorized under s. 45(2)(b) of the Planning Act because the term was not defined in general terms.

Furthermore, the requested variances under s. 45(1) failed the four-part test, as the significant noise impacts from the shooting range could not be adequately mitigated, making the proposed residential use incompatible and the variances not minor.

The proposal also failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which restrict residential uses on undersized agricultural lots to existing lots of record.

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the County of Norfolk following an appeal regarding a zoning by-law and official plan amendment to permit a 6-storey residential apartment building.

The appellant argued that the County's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious due to changes in its position on servicing, affordable housing, and urban design, as well as its rejection of settlement offers and pursuit of an infeasible waterfront trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the County's conduct did not rise to the level of being seriously unreasonable or warranting a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellants appealed a minor variance authorization for a proposed retirement home, arguing that a cost sharing condition should have been imposed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minor variance satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal held that cost sharing was not immediately relevant to whether the minor variance was desirable, and that the requested condition did not relate to the minor variance as it did not trigger any additional servicing requirements.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit an 18-storey mixed-use development.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order.

The Tribunal varied the procedural order to clarify that two participants, who were granted the ability to give oral evidence, would be called as witnesses of the Tribunal pursuant to section 18 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

They will testify after the evidence of all other parties but before any reply evidence from the applicant.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding minor variances required to construct an accessory dwelling unit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal applied the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

A case management conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 15-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to Corktown Residents and Business Association and Andrew Hilton, and deferred other participant requests.

Party status was granted to Preserve Corktown but denied to 1250294 Ontario Ltd. as its interest related to an easement outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The parties were directed to develop an Issues List and a draft procedural order.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby Committee of Adjustment's decision to modify a requested minor variance for lot coverage from 35% to 30% for two new residential dwellings on severed and retained parcels.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the requested variances, including the 35% lot coverage, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, relying on uncontested municipal planning staff reports and the appellant's architect.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced lot area for a secondary dwelling unit in the basement of an existing home.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, supported provincial policies encouraging affordable housing and intensification, and would not create adverse impacts.

The appeal was granted subject to the condition that the unit be limited to one bedroom.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 445.

The Tribunal granted party status to Queen Street Post Inc., noting they would shelter under the issues of other parties.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for October and November 2023, and a Procedural Order was approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested official plan and zoning by-law amendment for an 18-storey mixed-use development.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal considered several requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to a newly incorporated community group, South Junction Triangle Grows Inc., and granted participant status to a local resident and a condominium corporation, with the indulgence of allowing them to make oral statements at the hearing.

The hearing was scheduled for 13 days in October and November 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a mixed-use residential development in Markham.

The Tribunal granted party status to the York Region District School Board on consent.

The Tribunal also granted a motion to modify the subject applications to include both the West and East Parcels and a three-tower concept development proposal, finding the modifications maintained the essential nature of the original applications.

Procedural directions were given and a hearing date was set.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

Two local residents were granted participant status on consent.

A retired land use planner requested party status to cross-examine witnesses, but the Tribunal found his participation would not assist in determining the real questions in dispute and granted him participant status instead.

Further hearing dates were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use development.

The parties submitted a request to approve a revised Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to the eight-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 30, 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a residential addition incorporating a heritage building.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and requested hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing for July 2022 and ordered the parties to file a final Procedural Order.

The applicants appealed a consent decision regarding the severance of a property in the Township of Madoc.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve a revised consent application for a larger severed lot while withdrawing a second consent application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County of Hastings Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised consent subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan approval to permit a 164-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal which was endorsed by City Council.

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

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the instruments in principle, with final orders withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the proposed minutes of settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severances conform to the applicable Official Plans, comply with the Zoning By-law, are consistent with the PPS 2020, conform to the Growth Plan 2020, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey residential apartment building.

The municipality raised concerns regarding public access to the waterfront and the availability of water and wastewater servicing.

The Tribunal found that requiring public access to the river was not feasible due to security, topography, and accessibility issues, and that the proposed alternative community benefits were appropriate.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development subject to a Holding (H) provision pending confirmation of sufficient water and wastewater capacity.