Adrian Litavski

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-unit townhouse development on a property currently containing a single-detached dwelling.

The municipality argued the applications were premature due to an ongoing Heritage Conservation District study and that the proposal represented overdevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not premature, as no heritage freeze by-law had been enacted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on planning grounds, finding that while the site was suitable for some intensification, the proposed density was approximately 70% higher than permitted and would cause unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize an existing dwelling that was constructed contrary to its building permit.

The application was amended to 14 variances based on updated as-built drawings.

The City of Toronto and a neighbourhood association opposed the appeal, arguing the dwelling's height, flat roof, and high floor space index (FSI) were out of character and set a negative precedent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the FSI was inflated by the lot's shoreline hazard area and that the dwelling's articulation mitigated its massing.

The Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to a privacy screening condition.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a new Orthodox Jewish synagogue on a residential lot.

The requested variances related to lot area, frontage, setbacks, and parking.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed house-form massing respected the neighbourhood's physical character and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted evidence that the congregation's Orthodox practices would mitigate parking impacts, and approved the variances subject to a condition restricting the property's use to an Orthodox Jewish congregation.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit a rear addition containing two suites to an existing heritage dwelling.

The proposed variances were for building depth and rear yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, represented gentle intensification, and was designed to protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's expert witnesses over the respondent's experts, noting that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 380-unit, 20-storey residential apartment building and a separate commercial building on waterfront lands.

The Town argued the proposal was out of scale, too dense, and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal found the site was uniquely positioned for higher-density development, the design responded thoughtfully to its surroundings, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the York Region Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development.

The City opposed the development, raising concerns about shadow impacts on adjacent parklands, park grading, the lack of affordable housing, and the adequacy of the unit mix.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the shadow impacts were minimal, the park grading was acceptable, and there was no statutory or policy requirement to mandate affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal also found the proposed unit mix to be adequate and transit-supportive.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance for a reverse grade driveway, while approving 10 other variances for a new two-storey detached house.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed development, including the reverse grade driveway, respected the neighbourhood's physical character and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and all variances were conditionally approved.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to validate an existing detached garage and loggia that were built closer to the lot line than previously approved.

The City took no position on the appeal but requested a condition regarding lot grading and stormwater management.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to the City's requested condition.

The appellants appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced lot frontage of 10.6 metres (where 15 metres is required) to facilitate the severance of the property into two lots for new detached dwellings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, accepting expert planning evidence that the proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.