Anna Toumanians

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Welland's approval of Official Plan Amendment 16, Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-61, and conditions of a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the SWM Pond and Open Space blocks, neighbourhood commercial zoning provisions, and infrastructure timing conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified instruments and conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable plans, and approved the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 54-unit residential development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, optimizes the use of land and infrastructure, and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and satisfies the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought a minor variance and permission to expand a legal non-conforming second-floor balcony at a residential property.

The City of Burlington initially refused the application but subsequently reached a settlement with the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to a condition requiring the maintenance of a vegetative buffer.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a 29-storey mixed-use development.

Following a previous Tribunal decision granting the appeal, the parties reached a settlement on the final form of the planning instruments.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Zoning By-law No. 17-240 and Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 69.

The City and the remaining city-wide appellants, Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited and Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, reached a settlement involving modifications to the commercial and mixed-use zone regulations.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law in force.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The applicant appealed the municipality'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.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and issues list on consent to govern the upcoming hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building in the Downtown Core Precinct.

The City brought a motion to adjourn the hearing based on a Minister's oral announcement suggesting the Urban Growth Centre boundary would be moved, but the Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the Clergy principle to assess the application under the policies in force at the time it was submitted.

On the merits, the City argued the building should be limited to 22 storeys due to shadow, wind, and urban design impacts.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding no unacceptable impacts and concluding that the 29-storey proposal optimized the use of land, conformed to all relevant provincial and municipal policies, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 418 Waldemar Inc. against the City of Burlington's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 13-storey residential apartment building.

Following a previous decision directing the parties to file a Procedural Order with a refined Issues List, the Tribunal received the requested document on consent.

The Tribunal ordered that the submitted Procedural Order is in full force and effect.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment approved by the City of Sarnia and County of Lambton.

The parties agreed that the matter did not lend itself to mediation and requested a hearing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the appeals.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the City of Brampton's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a 360-unit residential subdivision on a 19.99-hectare infill site.

The appellants, representing residents of surrounding upscale executive housing neighborhoods, argued the proposed inclusion of townhouses and smaller lots was incompatible with the area's character and would cause traffic congestion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the expert planning, urban design, and traffic evidence of the City and the developer.

The Tribunal found that the proposal represented a modernized form of executive housing that complied with provincial intensification policies while remaining compatible with the existing communities.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and failure to decide on consent applications for two new residential lots.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled an eight-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Official Plan Amendment appeal was withdrawn.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, finding they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to applicable plans, and represent good planning in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a new lot containing an existing two-storey single dwelling and retain the remnant parcel as an Agricultural Purposes Only lot.

The appellant argued that the dwelling was a residence surplus to a farming operation resulting from a farm consolidation and that the timing requirements for severance should be applied flexibly.

The Hearing Officers found that the new dwelling, built decades after the original dwelling was demolished and in a different location, was not equivalent to the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the clear and unambiguous 10-year occupation and 2-year application timing rules in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Regional Official Plan were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed.

The City of Mississauga issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the entirety of a 2.15-acre property, which included a previously designated 19th-century dwelling and newly included natural features such as a watercourse and treed valley lands.

The property owners objected, arguing that the natural features lacked cultural heritage value.

The Conservation Review Board held a hearing and concluded that the property no longer retained sufficient farm-related features to be considered a representative example of a 19th-century farmstead.

The Board recommended that the City not proceed with designating the entire property and instead maintain the existing designation protecting the historic dwelling.