Callum Shedden

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the merit hearing of an appeal against a heritage designation by-law.

The applicant sought to have the appeal heard together with anticipated appeals of related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and demolition permit applications for the same property.

The Town opposed the adjournment, arguing the planning applications were premature until the heritage appeal was resolved.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that consolidating the matters would be an efficient use of resources and that the Town would not be prejudiced, as the heritage by-law remains in effect pending the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 122-unit residential development on a brownfield site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conform to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the amendments in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Title of Proceedings of a decision issued on October 15, 2024.

The amendment replaced the Title of Proceedings to accurately reflect the parties and objectors involved in the application for a Class 'A' License under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The applicant sought a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act to operate a quarry in Haldimand County.

Several area residents objected to the application, raising concerns about blasting, dust, noise, groundwater impacts, and traffic.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and several objectors reached a settlement, resulting in revised site plan drawings that included enhanced groundwater monitoring and complaint response protocols.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the official plan, and having appropriate regard for the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to the revised site plan conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to facilitate the development of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the municipality's planning evidence that the proposed lot sizes and densities would result in overdevelopment, lack functional amenity space, and fail to complement the existing neighbourhood fabric.

The Tribunal found the proposal did not conform with the low-density policies of the Garden City Official Plan.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed townhouse and mixed-use apartment development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day Merit Hearing to commence on January 13, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021.

One appellant withdrew their appeal, and another reached a settlement with the Town.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing for the resolved appeal and a further Case Management Conference for the remaining appellants, who are seeking to amend their development applications.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application.

The parties indicated that settlement was unlikely but discussions would continue.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a one-day video hearing for October 25, 2024.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry referred an application by the applicant for a Class A, Category 2 quarry licence to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal finalized the list of objectors, noted ongoing settlement discussions, scheduled a three-day video hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Fort Erie's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The parties indicated they were engaging in private settlement discussions and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 3, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order or status update by September 23, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a hearing scheduled for November 12, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 3-storey condominium with 24 residential units.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of procedural dates.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacating the August 2024 hearing dates and scheduling a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a property owned by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted party status to the property owner, directed the appellant to provide a revised issues list, and scheduled a motion for the property owner to seek dismissal of the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal also approved a procedural order and scheduled a ten-day hearing on the merits for January 2025.

The applicant appealed the Town's non-decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a three-storey, 17-unit residential apartment building.

The Town opposed the applications primarily on compatibility grounds, arguing the development did not fit the surrounding low-density neighbourhood.

The Tribunal applied a balancing approach, weighing policies that encourage an adequate supply, mix, and range of housing options against compatibility concerns.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's planners, the Tribunal found the proposed development to be adequately compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed, subject to a holding provision for stormwater management.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of 69 stacked townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, and the City supported the applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies, representing good land use planning and appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement that reduced the density, height, and altered the housing form to address public and municipal concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The City of Thorold requested a case management conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City's comprehensive zoning by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day hearing of the merits and approved the draft procedural order and issues list.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to request Tribunal-led mediation to potentially reduce the issues prior to the hearing.

The Town of Fort Erie brought a motion seeking partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 (the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law No. 144-2021, bringing them into force except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Casertano and found that the planning evidence supported the secondary plan, the remaining appeals were scoped to site-specific properties, the draft order protected the remaining appeals, and partial approval was in the public interest to allow other development applications to proceed.

The motion was granted.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, finding reasonable grounds under s. 17(44.2.2) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was also granted to a former resident.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to hear the Town's motion to bring the unappealed portions of the amendments into force.

The Niagara Home Builders' Association appealed the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019, challenging the inclusion of four road projects (portions of Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane, and related intersection improvements).

The appellant argued these were 'local services' and thus ineligible for development charges funding.

The Tribunal found that the City's Local Service Policy takes precedence in determining DC eligibility.

Based on their function, Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane were classified as Arterial Roads serving a broader community function, not just the specific subdivision.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the road projects and intersection improvements were properly included as DC eligible growth-related services.

The appeal was dismissed.