Alex Ciccone

This was a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of a consent application refusal and conditions of a draft plan of subdivision.

The District of Muskoka and the Town of Gravenhurst took the position that the subdivision appeal was invalid because the approval had lapsed.

The Tribunal directed the District to file a motion to determine the validity of the appeal and scheduled a hearing for the motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amended Procedural Order following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 30 Duke Street Limited against the City of Kitchener.

The appeals relate to the City's failure to make decisions on proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the Procedural Order to add a participant, update the style of cause, and add co-counsel for the City.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for a 6-storey, 90-unit mixed-use apartment building and 28 townhouses.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning by promoting residential intensification on an underutilized site with full municipal services.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss appeals against its Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) zoning by-law amendment, arguing the appeals targeted maximum building height and density, which are prohibited grounds under subsections 34(19.5) and (19.6) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while appeals directly challenging maximum height and density are prohibited, the legislation does not create blanket immunity for the entire by-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the appeals seeking mapping changes, finding they effectively targeted maximum building height.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals to proceed to a hearing regarding the built-form performance standards, provided the challenges are limited to aspects that do not directly drive maximum height or density.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue mediation efforts and submit a draft final Procedural Order and Issues List by January 24, 2025.

A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on a waterfront property.

The proposed variances sought relief for gross floor area, dwelling width, and building height.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, preferring the evidence of the appellant's land use planner.

The Tribunal found that the proposal satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it represented a reasonable expansion of a legal non-complying use, maintained the character of the area, and would not create negative impacts on adjacent properties.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning applications to rezone and approve a plan of subdivision, the County of Brant requested an adjournment of the merit hearing to review a newly received geotechnical report.

The appellant consented on the condition that the report be circulated on a 'with prejudice' basis and the hearing be rescheduled by August 2025.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, rescheduled the five-day merit hearing to August 18, 2025, and issued procedural directions.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County of Lambton's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 3, adopted by the City of Sarnia.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent.

The parties agreed to participate in a scoping exercise to identify the specific sections and schedules of the OPA under appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 28, 2024, to provide an update on the scoping exercise and to schedule a hearing date.

The applicant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's refusal of a consent application to create one new lot on a property subject to an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal determined that scheduling a hearing on the merits was premature due to a related ongoing appeal regarding the Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow the parties to update the Tribunal on the related appeal or potentially convert the conference to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit the development of a four-storey, eight-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included relief for minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, and minimum rear yard setback.

The Tribunal found that the lot area and lot coverage variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and represented good planning.

However, the Tribunal refused the rear yard setback variance because it permitted a minor penetration into the angular plane that would impact the light of surrounding low-rise residential uses, which was inconsistent with the City's Urban Design Manual and therefore failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Brant to make decisions regarding applications to rezone and approve a plan of subdivision for a 390-unit residential development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and requested the scheduling of a five-day merit hearing and a fourth Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal scheduled the merit hearing for February 2025 and the next Case Management Conference for November 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants against the municipality's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit the development of a mid-rise residential apartment.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for a three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 20, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to Huron Grain Processing Inc. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that six related appeals concerning official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, a draft plan of subdivision, and a consent application be consolidated and heard together.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The applicant appealed the City of London's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mid-rise residential apartment building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated a related site-specific appeal regarding the new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The parties requested a three-day merit hearing, noting the City Council had recently endorsed support for the proposed development.

The Tribunal scheduled the merit hearing and directed the exchange of a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Cognashene Cottagers Association on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 177-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one additional individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence on October 22, 2024.

The applicant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to create one new lot.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised of a dispute regarding whether the underlying Draft Plan of Subdivision had lapsed, which the applicant had separately appealed to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The Tribunal found that scheduling a hearing was premature given the uncertainty surrounding the subdivision appeal, which could impact the positions of the Town and the District.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to update the Tribunal or present a settlement.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing concerning three appeals against the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The appellants reached settlements with the City to establish site-specific zoning provisions for their respective properties, including permissions for office and medical clinic uses, and a mixed-use development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlements.

The County of Oxford appealed a decision of the Land Division Committee approving a consent to sever agricultural lands to facilitate a farm consolidation and retain a lot with an existing dwelling for non-farm rural residential purposes.

The Applicants argued the proposal was a boundary adjustment and that the appeal was filed late.

The Tribunal found the appeal was filed in time.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the County, the Tribunal held that the proposed severance did not conform to the County Official Plan, which prohibits retaining a surplus dwelling resulting from a farm consolidation if it was constructed after December 13, 1995.

The appeal was allowed and the consent was not given.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's passing of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order, scheduled a second CMC to potentially address the unappealed portions of the by-law, and set a four-day hearing on the merits.