Anna Toumanians

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to grant a consent to sever a property into two lots, each to be serviced by an advanced treatment septic system.

The City argued that its Hydrogeological Guidelines prohibited the use of advanced treatment systems to justify undersized lots due to concerns over long-term performance and enforcement.

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines did not form part of the Official Plan and were merely an interpretive tool.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that advanced treatment systems are reliable and that adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist, such as consent agreements registered on title.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions, including a monitoring agreement and financial securities.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the appellant against the township and county concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law regulating cannabis cultivation facilities.

The parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement concept is in place but requires municipal council endorsement.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide status updates and, if no settlement is reached, to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for partial approval of two city-wide zoning by-laws (ZBL 051 and ZBL 052) to bring the unappealed portions into force, specifically excluding provisions related to electric vehicle parking standards which remain under appeal.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding the unappealed portions consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning.

The Tribunal also addressed an oral motion to dismiss appeals filed by a self-represented individual, finding that those appeals had already been withdrawn, but noting they would have been dismissed regardless for failing to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 95-unit townhouse development.

At the sixth Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions were ongoing and requested a one-day settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the settlement hearing for October 17, 2024, noting that if site plan and subdivision applications are not resolved, the second half of the hearing will convert to a Case Management Conference for those matters.

The applicant appealed the failure of the approval authorities to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a proposed mixed-use development featuring 12 high-rise towers.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the upper-tier municipality without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 12-day hearing on the merits, and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Parkside Hills Inc. concerning conditions of approval for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a related Site Plan Application in the City of Hamilton.

The core issue involves the valuation of lands to be conveyed to the City for stormwater management purposes.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing for January 2025 and approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on an application for Site Plan Approval for a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented agreed-upon Conditions of Approval to the Tribunal.

Relying on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal found the site plan and conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and satisfied the requirements of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development consisting of apartment buildings and stacked townhouses.

Following a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings leading up to the hearing scheduled for July 2024.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 54, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town reached a proposed settlement that resolves all issues on the Issues List, and discussions with the Regional Municipality of Halton were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order with a scoped Issues List and a written update on whether a contested hearing would still be required.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use commercial development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised applications.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a proposed Official Plan Amendment, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested new hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for October 2024 and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previously issued decision.

The amendment replaced the name of counsel for the County of Lambton in the appearances section.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant appealed the Township's zoning by-law and official plan amendments relating to cannabis cultivation and production facilities.

At a concurrent Case Management Conference, the parties consented to consolidate the appeals.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation, noting the common appellant and related subject matter.

An additional Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and a 10-day hearing on the merits was set.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a residential lot containing a historic home into three parcels, as well as the Town's passing of a heritage designation by-law.

The Tribunal found that the property was not a farm remnant and that neither the deep front yard setback nor the former driveshed constituted protectable heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the severances and variances subject to conditions, including a heritage easement to protect views of the historic home, finding the proposal consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appellants appealed the Region of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (the Trafalgar Secondary Plan) to the Town of Milton Official Plan.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding approximately 61 policies, leaving 16 policies unresolved.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the resolved policies were consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, modifying and approving the resolved policies while withholding approval on the unresolved policies.

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 Tribunal approved a settlement resolving Phase 2 and Phase 3 of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 32 (OPA 32) for the Southwest Georgetown Lands in the Town of Halton Hills.

The settlement modifies OPA 32 to establish a secondary plan permitting approximately 9,300 dwelling units, commercial and institutional uses, and a transportation network.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 32 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modifications, and the related private official plan amendment appeals were dismissed.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on March 18, 2024, regarding an appeal by the applicant for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey apartment building in the City of Mississauga.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 54, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan for the Town of Milton.

The parties advised the Tribunal of productive settlement discussions and requested a written hearing to consider a motion for partial approval of the Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled the written hearing for January 19, 2024, and a third Case Management Conference for February 26, 2024, to address further scheduling and procedural matters.