Andrea Peebles

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 2, which establishes the framework for three Major Transit Station Areas.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from a local business pending the scoping of the appeals.

The parties were directed to continue discussions regarding the contents of the Notice of Appeal and to advise the Tribunal if a motion is required.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the municipality's Community Benefits Charge By-law under section 37(17) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to continue active settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to advise if a settlement is reached or if a merits hearing needs to be scheduled.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances related to parking requirements and first-floor height for a proposed 28-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that addressed the City's concerns regarding reduced parking spaces by including conditions of approval, including a financial contribution to a parking reserve.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Burlington's Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances related to parking requirements for a 28-storey mixed-use building.

The scheduled merit hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference after the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached in principle.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day written hearing to consider the settlement and directed the parties to provide the necessary supporting materials.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's modified approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

Due to an administrative error by the City, notice of the initial Case Management Conference was not provided, causing a delay.

On consent, the appellant requested a Status Hearing to schedule the merit hearing to avoid further prejudice.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing for June 2025 and set dates for the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Burlington's Development Charges By-law No. 41-2024.

The appellant expressed interest in a mediation assessment and requested time to determine if mediation will proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 21, 2024, to allow the parties to explore mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant railway company against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal deferred a request for party status by a neighbouring landowner, directing them to file a written motion.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding proposed Amendment No. PC 225 22 to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which would amend agricultural policies to allow for on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal granted party status to Michael and Mark Krapez and Regal Point Elk Farm without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing on March 24, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Following a settlement and an interim approval, the parties sought an order for minor technical revisions to the approved instruments and the approval of Conditions of Draft Plan Approval.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revisions to be minor and prudent, and the conditions to be appropriate and in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the revised instruments and attached the conditions, withholding its final order pending confirmation of a regional servicing allocation.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as a heritage designation and demolition permit refusal, to permit a 33-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement that included relocating and integrating the existing heritage building into the new development.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial, regional, and municipal policies for intensification within an Urban Growth Centre.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the planning instruments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending heritage approvals.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment No. 130, the City requested an amendment to the Procedural Order to change the order of argument so it could present first.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the City failed to demonstrate undue prejudice to justify altering the previously ordered procedure, especially since evidence would be submitted in writing.

The Tribunal granted a joint request to adjourn the merit hearing to allow the parties to consider impending provincial legislation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Hearing Office considered the status of 21 objectors who triggered the hearing.

Interpreting the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Hearing Office determined that the hearing is in the nature of a public inquiry and that objectors are 'interested persons' entitled to question witnesses.

Consequently, all objectors were granted Party status.

The Hearing Office also granted Added Party status to two other entities and issued procedural directions for the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit increased lot coverage and floor area ratio for a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal reviewed the municipal staff report, which concluded that the variances, subject to a condition reducing the number of second-storey windows, met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to the agreed condition.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by the Building Industry and Land Development Association and Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc. & Carriage Gate Inc. against the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 130.

The amendment updated policies in response to Bill 109 regarding pre-consultation processes and complete planning application submissions.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, key dates, parties, and the issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a mixed-use community.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions and approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final order pending confirmation of servicing allocation.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of mid-rise, mixed-use buildings and stacked townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal, including minor increases to height and density to accommodate design changes.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments.

The appellants appealed the City's passing of a heritage designation by-law for their property under s. 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first case management conference, the parties requested more time to discuss the draft issues list and explore a potential resolution.

The Tribunal scheduled a second case management conference to accommodate these ongoing discussions.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a residential lot and for a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.95 metres.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed infill development was compatible with the neighbourhood, met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act, and satisfied the criteria for consent.

The appeals were allowed, the variance was authorized, and provisional consent was granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a high-rise residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of 22-storey and 17-storey towers connected by a 6-storey podium.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment No. 130, which implemented changes related to Bill 109.

The Tribunal accepted the parties' jointly proposed approach for a draft Procedural Order, noting the hearing would be based primarily on legal arguments.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange issues and file a final draft Procedural Order with an Issues List by early February 2024.