Alex Ciccone

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on an application for a temporary use zoning by-law to permit on-site rock crushing for up to two years during the construction of a residential subdivision.

The Township argued the mobile crusher was a 'major facility' under the Provincial Policy Statement and raised concerns about noise, dust, and endangered species.

The Tribunal found the crusher was a temporary construction-related emissions source, not a major facility, and that noise and dust could be adequately mitigated through a Best Management Practices Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, withholding its final order until the by-law is in final form.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated March 20, 2024.

The amendment updated the paragraphs detailing the dates, times, and access links for the upcoming video hearings scheduled for April 23, 2024, and June 25, 2024.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the development of 24 affordable stacked townhouse units by Habitat for Humanity.

The appellants raised concerns regarding density, compatibility, and environmental impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal also approved a technical amendment to the by-law.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's enactment of a city-wide zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all outstanding issues, including definitions for void areas and gross floor area, and setback regulations for townhouses.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement modifications are minor, consistent with provincial policies, conform to applicable official plans, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 177-unit high-density residential development.

The threshold issue was whether the lands should be re-designated and re-zoned for residential uses given an existing oversupply of residential lands in the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the site-specific redesignation of the fully serviced, shovel-ready infill property was appropriate and an efficient use of under-utilized land, despite the oversupply.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to move forward to a full hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 29-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled an eight-day video hearing on the merits for October 2024.

The appellants appealed the Township's denial of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on private services on a 2.96-acre conditionally severed lot.

The subject property was designated 'Future Development' and located at the edge of the urban boundary.

The Township argued the development was premature pending a Municipal Comprehensive Review and that higher density was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellants' planning evidence that the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and would not impede future orderly development of the larger retained parcel.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing duplex to create a fourplex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying one of the parking area setback variances.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications to sever a corner lot into two lots for the construction of two detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed lot frontages and areas were significantly undersized and out of character with the neighbourhood.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the minor variances did not meet the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and the consent application did not conform to the City's Official Plan under s. 51(24).

The appeals were dismissed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal granted party status to 2793031 Ontario Inc. on consent.

The parties advised that discussions were ongoing to scope the issues and potentially bring parts of the by-law into force.

The Tribunal scheduled a scoping motion and a second Case Management Conference, and directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered several requests for party status from neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal granted party status to four individuals on consent and deferred other requests to a second Case Management Conference scheduled for October 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Quincy Developments against the Municipality of Central Elgin's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 177-unit high-density residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Central Elgin and participant status to 15 individuals.

A 2-day hearing was scheduled to determine threshold issues regarding the appropriateness of redesignating and rezoning the subject lands for residential uses given the existing supply of residential lands and the planned function of other future development areas.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a medical office as a home occupation and to allow one non-resident employee.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the variance for the medical office, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as it would operate within the policies of a home occupation without altering the physical character of the neighbourhood.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the variance for the non-resident employee, concluding that it did not meet the intent of the zoning by-law and would inappropriately commercialize the residential area.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that increased the maximum lot coverage for a waterfront property to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling.

The appellant argued the development was out of character, would unacceptably impact views of the lake, lacked sufficient environmental studies, and failed to meet setback requirements.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, preferring the evidence of the respondents' planning experts.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was compatible with the area, would not have an unacceptable visual impact, and that environmental impacts would be negligible.

The Tribunal approved a revised zoning by-law amendment proposed by the applicants that slightly reduced the requested lot coverage and added specific height and setback restrictions.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the respondent's partial indemnity costs.

On consent of the parties, costs were fixed at $30,000, payable by the applicant.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 46-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed development and draft Zoning By-law Amendment were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their consent and minor variance applications by the Town of Ingersoll Committee of Adjustment.

The applications sought to create a flag-shaped residential infill lot in the backyard of an existing property, requiring relief from minimum lot frontage requirements.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents were granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications propose a 390-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a representative of local residents and participant status to several individuals.

A further status hearing was scheduled for July 2023 to finalize the issues list and set hearing dates.