S. Mann

The applicant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to approve a Site Plan Control Application for a single detached dwelling on a property located within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The City and the conservation authority argued the development should be relocated to a different part of the property to minimize impacts on significant woodlands and wildlife habitat.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site plan, finding that the applicant's proposed location, supported by expert evidence and a Managed Forest Plan, would not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the area and represented good site plan design.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a multi-building mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representing good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order allowing an appeal in part and amending the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal had previously issued an interim decision approving the proposed amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

Having received confirmation that the conditions were fulfilled, the Tribunal issued the final order.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 6-storey, 113-unit residential apartment building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represented an unprecedented over-intensification of residential uses in the Downtown Area.

The Tribunal also held that the applications were premature, as they would usurp the ongoing Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan Update and undermine the public consultation process.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to create one new lot and construct a new dwelling.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence from both the appellant and the municipality supporting the applications.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the minor variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Township's refusal of consent applications to sever several properties.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a three-day video hearing for December 2022.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property into two lots and permit reduced lot width, area, and side yard setbacks.

The City did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and meets the legislative tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consents subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances.

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to permit a one-bedroom secondary dwelling unit in the basement of their existing home.

The variances sought relief for minimum lot area and frontage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

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

The Appellants appealed the Town of Petrolia's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit residential development within a 10-hectare significant woodlot.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's forestry and species at risk studies did not constitute a complete Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as required by the Provincial Policy Statement, County Official Plan, and Town Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and refused the amendments, concluding that a full EIS demonstrating no negative impacts on natural features or ecological functions is required before development can be considered.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Guelph Eramosa's decision to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for a rural industrial facility.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for February 2023.

The appellant appealed the City of Timmins' approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the rezoning of a property to facilitate the construction of a six-unit apartment building.

The appellant raised concerns regarding infrastructure, neighbourhood character, and over-development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence of a City planner, who testified that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Official Plan and Growth Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 Tribunal held a first case management conference regarding an appeal by Tuxedo Court GP Ltd. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 644-unit mixed-use development.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority was granted party status without objection.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Welland's approval of Official Plan Amendment 16, Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-61, and conditions of a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the SWM Pond and Open Space blocks, neighbourhood commercial zoning provisions, and infrastructure timing conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified instruments and conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable plans, and approved the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent to sever and minor variances required to create a new lot for a long semi-detached dwelling and establish a parking easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance had regard for the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal noted the development represented appropriate infill intensification in a transit-friendly area and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of Zoning By-law No. 62-21, which restricted the expansion of its existing cannabis production and processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve an amended version of the by-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended by-law, which establishes site-specific setbacks and excludes outdoor growth or storage, is consistent with provincial policies and constitutes good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to enact the amended by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal for a 40-storey building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions, including a Section 37 agreement for community benefits.

The appellant appealed the City of Windsor's passing of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 4-storey, 55-unit residential building on a property previously zoned for neighbourhood commercial uses.

The appellant raised concerns regarding building massing, setbacks, and urban design compatibility with the surrounding low-profile residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the uncontroverted planning evidence of the City's planner, finding that the amendment facilitated appropriate residential infill, optimized infrastructure, and provided adequate transition to promote compatibility.

The Tribunal concluded the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Official Plan, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment that permitted redevelopment and increased heights, arguing it failed to provide sufficient affordable housing and violated the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the appeal failed to disclose any legitimate land use planning grounds, as the City's Official Plan only encouraged a target for affordable housing and the City had not enacted inclusionary zoning.

The appellant also failed to provide evidence to support its Charter and Human Rights Code claims.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 243 square meter addition to an existing group home.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised site plan constitutes good planning and conforms to provincial policies regarding accessibility and special needs housing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plans in principle, subject to conditions.