Analee Baroudi

The appellant appealed the Town of Amherstburg's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that reduced the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 0 metres for a property in the Central Business Area.

The amendment was intended to facilitate the development of a five-storey mixed-use building, including a boutique hotel, retail space, and a restaurant.

The appellant raised concerns regarding prematurity, fire safety, traffic sightlines, parking, and loss of light and air flow to an adjacent residential building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County and Town Official Plans, and represents good planning in the public interest.

At a Case Management Conference regarding site-specific and town-wide Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to King Devco Inc. for the town-wide appeals.

Participant status was also granted to two individuals without objection.

A 10-day hearing of the merits was scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's passing of an Official Plan Amendment, which incorporates new Secondary Plan policies for an industrial park district.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day hearing on the merits, and directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment, which excluded the appellant's lands from a settlement boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to another interested party.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day hearing of the merits for January 2025 and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment for a 26-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to one resident and participant status to several others on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and procedural order.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 59 adopted by the County of Middlesex.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order submitted on consent by the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing for phase one issues and a 5-day hearing for phase two issues, and directed the parties to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

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 municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit a sign shop establishment.

A Case Management Conference was held to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing to proceed by video and directed the exchange of documents.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the overall lot coverage from 35% to 40% for future dwellings in an approved subdivision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed increase is compatible with the surrounding area, makes efficient use of land and services, and does not increase fire risk.

The Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment #59.

The Tribunal granted party status to Comgord Limited on consent.

The parties requested more time to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing until the procedural documents are approved and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for June 6, 2024.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve applications to permit a rural wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use.

At the first Case Management Conference, the County of Elgin was granted participant status.

The applicants brought a motion on consent to adjourn the matter sine die to allow the parties to engage in resolution discussions or seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment 59.

The Tribunal granted party status to several non-appellant property owners who demonstrated genuine land use planning concerns.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the second Case Management Conference, which was scheduled for May 8, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of London's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment concerning the distribution of affordable housing units across a proposed three-building, 490-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement agreeing to a specific distribution of the 30 affordable housing units among the three buildings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised by-law is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to the Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments that facilitated a 600-unit residential development, citing noise compatibility concerns with its adjacent flour mill operations.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the subject property would be designated as a Class 4 Noise Area under provincial guidelines, requiring specific noise mitigation measures and warning clauses.

Relying on uncontested expert evidence in land use planning and acoustics, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good planning principles.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and approved the amended planning instruments.

The appellants appealed the Municipality's denial of a consent application to sever a 2.8-hectare residential lot containing two dwellings from a 37.9-hectare farm parcel.

The appellants argued the dwellings were surplus to their farming operation following farm consolidation.

The Tribunal found the application premature under s. 51(24)(b) of the Planning Act because the property was subject to a site-specific zoning by-law prohibiting further severances, and no zoning by-law amendment application was before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also noted the severance would further reduce an already undersized agricultural parcel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of six townhouse units on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

A neighboring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about traffic, scale, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed medium-density development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the development represents appropriate infill that is compatible with the surrounding area and directed the City to amend the zoning by-law subject to conditions regarding landscaping and buffering.

The appellants appealed the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey, 23-unit multiple dwelling on a vacant lot in the Walkerville Heritage Area.

The appellants argued the development was incompatible with the neighbourhood's character, citing concerns over massing, setbacks, shadowing, and parking, and argued the City ignored a previous zoning decision for single-family homes on the site.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area, provided an appropriate transition from a commercial arterial road, and met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, including heritage conservation policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the City of London to permit a development of three mixed-use buildings.

The parties resolved outstanding issues regarding the Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 7-day video hearing for May 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-unit townhouse condominium development.

The main issue was whether the proposed increase in density from 35 to 48 units per hectare would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to finalization.

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.