Analee Baroudi

The appellant appealed the Town of Amherstburg's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a reduced rear yard setback for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant and one adjacent resident, but denied party status to another resident who did not intend to call evidence.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a consolidated issues list and draft procedural order ahead of a second Case Management Conference.

The applicants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments were intended to facilitate the development of two apartment buildings with up to 193 units and a municipal stormwater management pond.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments, as modified by the settlement, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified amendments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated July 26, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Attachment 2 to the Order with a new attachment containing the corrected Zoning By-law amendment for the lands located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East in the City of London.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an addition, an additional residential unit, and a commercial marina facility on their property abutting Kettle Creek.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment had appropriate regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding natural hazards, conformed with the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by a ratepayers association against the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendment permits a 10-unit cluster townhouse development.

The Tribunal corrected the applicant's name, dismissed 13 participant status requests due to a misunderstanding, and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a four-storey multiple dwelling on the site of a former heritage church.

The Tribunal finalized the Issues List, approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits for October 2023.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a reduced front yard depth for a proposed six-unit apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a 3-metre minimum front yard depth, increased from the originally requested 1 metre.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and failure to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision, to facilitate a 1,300-unit residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which included the relocation of a wetland that no longer qualified as provincially significant, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions.

The municipality and the applicant brought a joint motion to dismiss an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted an eight-storey mixed-use building.

The subject lands were located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal found that the self-represented appellant failed to raise legitimate land use planning grounds and did not intend to call expert evidence.

Concluding that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create an infill lot.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

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

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 13-unit condominium townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, which were subsequently submitted and approved.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for September 2023.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to include residential provisions in a zoning by-law amendment and its failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes under the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellant withdrew its appeal under s. 34(11) and proceeded solely under s. 34(19).

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the procedural order and issues list submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of a three-storey triplex on a waterfront property in Grand Bend.

The municipality and a local community association opposed the development, arguing the building's scale and massing were excessively large and incompatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the unique characteristics of the large, dually-zoned lot made the proposed medium-density development an appropriate transition between nearby high-density and low-density uses, and that the design was compatible with the eclectic neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 45-unit residential infill development for seniors, arguing it interfered with their adjacent development plans by creating a permanent turning circle.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the site plan to ensure access without interfering with the appellant's lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised development and draft amended zoning by-law had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing, arguing the appeal lacked apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants opposed the motion, intending to present evidence on heritage planning and infill studies, and to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the appellants had demonstrated an intention to bring legitimate land planning issues to a merits hearing and had not met the criteria for dismissal under the Planning Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the storage of fireworks on lands located in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that while public safety concerns were addressed by federal licensing, the application was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because the appellants failed to provide a rigorous assessment of need or a comprehensive evaluation of alternative locations.

Furthermore, the application did not conform to the Town Official Plan as the proposed use was not part of a municipal initiative and was not demonstrated to be inappropriate within a settlement area.

The appeals were denied and the application was refused.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant on consent.

The parties were directed to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a 13-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Leverton Developments Inc. against the Township of Malahide's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a two-and-a-half storey, six-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent and scheduled a two-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal against the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought to permit the development of two high-density residential blocks.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on May 23, 2023.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend several dates in the Procedural Order for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.