S.L. Dionne

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and approve a zoning by-law amendment to permit a stacked townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed on procedural matters and requested the scheduling of a second CMC and a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 8, 2024, and a five-day merit hearing commencing August 26, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit two 14-storey mixed-use buildings.

The parties reached a settlement proposal, which the City Council approved in principle.

The Tribunal reviewed the settlement, supported by uncontroverted expert planning evidence, and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settlement proposal in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The Town of Oakville appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance for a maximum residential floor area ratio to permit a second-storey addition.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on revised plans that reduced the massing and scale of the addition.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the amended variance subject to conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by McCormick Village Inc. concerning the redevelopment of the former McCormick Cookie Factory.

The Tribunal consolidated a new appeal regarding a draft plan of subdivision with the existing appeals concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

A revised Procedural Order and Issues List were approved on consent, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the redevelopment of a former cookie factory.

The Tribunal consolidated a new appeal regarding a draft plan of subdivision with the existing appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

A revised Procedural Order and Issues List were approved on consent, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the classification of 20 dwelling units for the purpose of calculating development charges under the City of Markham and Regional Municipality of York by-laws.

The appellant argued the units should be classified as 'large apartments' rather than 'multiple unit dwellings,' seeking a refund of charges paid under protest.

The Tribunal interpreted the specific definitions in both by-laws.

Under the Region's by-law, the Tribunal found the units lacked a common entrance to grade and thus constituted multiple unit dwellings, dismissing the appeal against the Region.

Under the City's by-law, the Tribunal found the units met the definition of a 'triplex' and therefore qualified as 'large apartments,' allowing the appeal against the City and ordering a refund of $142,440.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of a Community Improvement Plan because his property was excluded from the Community Improvement Project Area.

The parties reached a settlement to modify the plan to include the subject property, which is designated for commercial use and has heritage significance.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modification is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bond Head Properties Eight Inc. against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury and County of Simcoe.

The amendments would facilitate the development of a trucking company head office and warehouse facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority on consent.

As the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 9, 2024, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Toronto to facilitate a master planned mixed-use community.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised zoning by-law amendment to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for reduced interior side yard setbacks for an existing shed and deck, while approving a variance for increased lot coverage subject to conditions.

The Town opposed the setback variances, arguing they conflicted with engineering standards for drainage swales and impeded access.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized all requested variances without the Town's proposed conditions, finding no evidence of actual drainage issues or restricted access, and concluding the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an existing small-scale shed within the shoreline setback on their seasonal recreational property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment that defined the structure as a 'marine storage shed' and established specific regulations for its size and setbacks.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications for a proposed 25-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised 22-storey proposal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised Zoning By-law Amendment, while the Site Plan Approval appeal remains outstanding.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that included the removal of a contested woodlot, supported by uncontroverted expert ecological and planning evidence indicating the woodlot was in poor health and its removal would not negatively impact the broader natural heritage system.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposal consistent with provincial policy, representative of good planning, and in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback to permit the construction of a three-storey, 12-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, provides missing middle housing, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the reduced setback would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and revised the architectural drawings to reduce the overall height and massing of the dwelling.

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

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a 41-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities on consent.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on May 27, 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate a 44-unit residential infill development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the by-law to address the appellant's concerns regarding privacy and overlook by restricting second-floor windows and projections on specific lots.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modified by-law is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.