Carly Emmett

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated zoning by-law amendment intended to regulate cannabis cultivation and production facilities in the Township of Clearview.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment to the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the submission of a final site plan application and the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

The appellants appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the applicants to develop three small cabins for short-term accommodation on their farm property.

The appellants argued the proposal was not a valid On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU) and did not comply with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were engaged in a genuine farming operation and that the proposed agri-tourism use met the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The Tribunal also determined that MDS I setbacks were not required because the municipality's zoning by-law did not specifically mandate them for this type of use.

The appeal was allowed in part only to make technical refinements to the zoning by-law, but otherwise dismissed.

At a case management conference concerning an appeal of a zoning by-law regulating cannabis operations, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's property.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the by-law for all lands within the by-law area except for the appellant's property, on a without prejudice basis.

A procedural order was issued and a six-day hearing on the merits was scheduled.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality of Grey Highlands' approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendment would permit three cabins for short-term accommodation on agricultural lands.

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

The applicant appealed the Township Committee of Adjustment's refusal of six applications for consent to sever rural residential lots.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement proposing to dismiss three appeals and approve the remaining three to facilitate lot consolidation and boundary adjustments.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including rezoning the resultant lands to an Environmental Protection zone.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Meaford's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey residential condominium building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for participant status from several individuals.

Over the appellants' objections that most requesters lived beyond 120 metres of the site, the Tribunal granted participant status to all requesters, agreeing with the municipality that the site is prominent and the development is of community-wide importance.

The Tribunal also scheduled an eight-day video hearing and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

The parties attended a status hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal after failing to finalize a settlement regarding an appeal of a municipal development charges by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2023 and a preceding telephone status hearing for May 2023 to review the draft hearing plan.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use waterfront development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal comprising nine buildings, including a hotel, townhouses, and an apartment building.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement by-law.

The County of Simcoe appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application for a lot boundary adjustment on agricultural lands.

The applicant sought to sever a portion of their farm, separated by a natural heritage feature, and merge it with an adjacent vacant rural residential lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the consent, finding that the proposal was not a 'minor boundary adjustment' but rather the creation of two undersized agricultural lots.

The Tribunal held that the resulting parcels would not conform to the minimum 40-hectare lot size requirement in the Simcoe County Official Plan and were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's protection of agricultural resources.

The appellant, a board member of a condominium corporation, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance allowing the applicants to construct a deck with a reduced rear yard setback and increased lot coverage.

The appellant argued the variance would interfere with the condominium corporation's easement and restrictive covenants regarding maintenance access to a shoreline revetment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the enforcement of private restrictive covenants and easements falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference for an appeal brought by the appellant against the respondent municipality regarding a development charge by-law.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a Telephone Conference Call status hearing for September 16, 2022, and a nine-day video hearing on the merits commencing November 7, 2022.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing requirements and the hearing of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the reconstruction and enlargement of a dwelling and sundeck on an undersized waterfront lot.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and his adjournment request was denied.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the Township's planner, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law, the Tribunal considered 134 new requests for participant status.

Because none of the requestors attended the hearing as required by the Notice of Hearing, the Tribunal denied them participant status.

However, the Tribunal permitted counsel for the parties to assist the requestors in organizing common Participant Statements to be considered at the next hearing event.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 70-unit townhouse development on a former tannery site.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to recognize an existing dock and boathouse width, and the side yard setback of an existing dock and boatlift.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a larger dwelling with reduced setbacks and a reduced septic system setback on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellant's planning evidence that the proposal would not create negative visual impacts due to significant vegetative buffering and that the upgraded septic system represented a net improvement.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to site plan control and other conditions.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.