S. Gopikrishna

The appellant appealed a decision of the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 20% to 24% to facilitate a two-storey covered balcony.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's agent failed to provide sufficient planning evidence to demonstrate that the variance met any of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant did not address the intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, nor did they adequately respond to neighbours' concerns regarding privacy and neighbourhood character.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for density, parking, and bicycle spaces to permit an additional residential unit in an apartment building under construction, but imposed a condition requiring a perimeter fence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they supported residential intensification and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal also found no plausible explanation for the fence condition, as the exterior of the building was already completed.

The appeal was allowed, the variances were authorized, and the fence condition was waived.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The proposal sought to create six lots from four existing lots to construct single-family detached homes, requiring variances for reduced lot areas.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and the consent satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification and infill development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision issued on May 28, 2024.

The amendment updated the video hearing information, including the GoTo Meeting link and access codes.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Rymal East Development Corp. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence on July 22, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order with an approved Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton'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 development consisting of apartment buildings and stacked townhouses.

Following a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings leading up to the hearing scheduled for July 2024.

The appellant appealed a non-decision by the City's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to permit the development of an industrial mall.

The requested variances sought a reduced parking rate and an increase in the maximum impervious area.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the non-decision.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence and a settlement reached between the parties, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a minor variance application by the Township of Tiny Committee of Adjustment.

The appellants sought variances for a reduced side yard setback and increased lot coverage to accommodate a two-storey addition and attached garage.

The Township did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that both variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed development was consistent with the character of the neighbourhood and that alternative access to the backyard was available.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to a lot grading condition.

The applicant appealed a minor variance application under section 45(12) of the Planning Act to permit a dog kennel on the subject property.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal issued a decision approving the revised variance.

The Tribunal subsequently issued this amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in the original decision, clarifying that the animal kennel is permitted within 1.40 metres from any lot line.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to the agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval.

The Tribunal granted party status to three entities on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that the Site Plan Application appeal be determined separately from the Zoning By-Law Amendment appeal.

A 9-day hearing was scheduled for August 2024.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act after the Town of Ajax refused to accept its site plan applications.

The Town argued the applications were premature because the required pre-consultation meeting had not occurred and the related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision were not yet in effect.

The Tribunal found that the Town's refusal was not authorized by the Planning Act, as the municipality cannot use a pre-consultation by-law to indefinitely delay or refuse an application, nor can it demand an approved OPA, ZBA, or DPS as a complete application requirement unless explicitly stated in the official plan.

The Tribunal deemed the applications complete as of June 30, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three buildings of 18, 25, and 16 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the development in principle and withholding its final order pending submission of the final instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by The R.W. Bloor Street Development Corporation against the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a 94-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Mizrahi Development Group (The One) Inc. and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2208 on consent.

A 10-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for June 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was finalized.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a rear two-storey addition, a third-storey addition, and a detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the neighbouring property owners appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the prevailing building type in the immediate context and did not demonstrate how the proposal, particularly the requested floor space index, respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were refused.

The applicants filed a Review Request of a Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) decision that refused their application for nine minor variances to build a two-storey dwelling.

The applicants alleged the adjudicator made errors of fact regarding the variance dimensions, erred in law by treating the failure of one variance as the failure of all, misapplied Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, failed to make mandatory findings on Provincial Policy, and provided insufficient reasons.

The TLAB dismissed the Review Request, finding that the adjudicator's path to refusal was clear, the alleged factual errors were not determinative, and the adjudicator reasonably concluded that the failure of the critical front yard setback and FSI variances resulted in the failure of the entire application.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit zero on-site parking spaces for 12 new residential units in an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal relied on expert transportation evidence demonstrating sufficient available street parking in the neighbourhood and imposed conditions requiring the applicant to notify tenants of the lack of parking and provide pre-loaded transit cards.

In an appeal concerning minor variances for a property on Riverside Drive, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim order to manage written submissions.

The parties had agreed on most conditions but disputed one.

Due to tight timelines and a lack of a prior authorizing order, the panel member extended the deadlines, allowing the applicants until June 8, 2023, to respond to the disputed condition, and the opposition until June 15, 2023, to reply.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and order adjusting the deadlines for written submissions and argument in a minor variance appeal.

The adjustment was made to accommodate a statutory holiday and to allow the appellant to review the applicant's submissions before filing their own argument.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding a minor variance application for the property at 3753-3755 Lake Shore Blvd.

W. Following a hearing where expert witnesses testified on potential conditions of approval, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim order.

The applicant was directed to submit a finalized list of requested variances, updated recommendations for conditions, and corresponding plans and elevations by May 10, 2023.