Allan Ramsay

The applicant appealed the Town of Newmarket's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development consisting of townhouses and a triplex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on most issues, including the protection of natural heritage features and the appropriateness of the residential uses.

The sole remaining issue was the applicant's request for a reduced parking rate.

The Tribunal approved the settlement but rejected the reduced parking rate, finding insufficient evidence to justify applying Urban Centre parking standards to the subject property and citing concerns about potential spillover parking in the transitional area.

The applicant appealed the municipality’s non-decisions on official plan and zoning amendments and also challenged notices of intention to designate and refusals of demolition permits for two heritage dwellings on a greyfield main street site proposed for mixed-use intensification.

The Tribunal held that planning policy at the provincial, regional and local levels supported medium-scale intensification on the site, but that heritage policy and the evidence required retention of both dwellings in substantial form rather than demolition or near-total removal with commemoration.

The Tribunal preferred the municipal heritage evidence that the houses function as visual touchstones in a broader historic streetscape tied to fruit-farming history and that demolition should remain a last resort.

It therefore recommended designation of both properties, denied the demolition relief as sought, and allowed the planning appeals in part by approving the official plan and zoning amendments in principle subject to redesign consistent with the heritage findings.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Petrolia's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit residential development within a 10-hectare significant woodlot.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's forestry and species at risk studies did not constitute a complete Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as required by the Provincial Policy Statement, County Official Plan, and Town Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and refused the amendments, concluding that a full EIS demonstrating no negative impacts on natural features or ecological functions is required before development can be considered.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal to amend the zoning by-law and official plan to permit a 19-unit townhouse development on a site zoned for neighbourhood commercial use.

The City argued the commercial zoning should be preserved and that the residential proposal was incompatible with the existing neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the broader neighbourhood was adequately serviced by existing commercial developments and that the proposed infill townhouses were compatible with the established residential fabric.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the amendment of the official plan and withholding the final zoning order pending a finalized by-law, but declined the City's request to require section 118 Land Titles Act restrictions.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding provision and permit an access dock in a Type 1 Fish Habitat zone to facilitate cottage development on a water-access island property.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed dock and associated boating activity would have no negative impact on the highly sensitive aquatic vegetation and potential species at risk habitat.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that detailed environmental impact studies could be deferred to the site plan approval stage, holding that such studies are required at the zoning stage to establish the feasibility of the development.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the replacement of an existing cottage and bunkhouse with a larger dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot.

The proposed development required variances for lot coverage, gross floor area, width, and front yard setback.

The Tribunal found that the proposal, subject to an increased 15-metre front yard setback, constituted a net improvement over the existing development, conformed to the District and Township Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amendment with the modified setback.

The applicant sought official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as an aggregate license, to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

The municipality and local residents opposed the expansion, raising concerns about noise, air quality, blasting (specifically flyrock), traffic safety, and social impacts.

The Tribunal evaluated expert evidence and found that the proposed expansion, with its integrated mitigation and monitoring measures, would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal rejected the objectors' request for a fixed flyrock exclusion zone and found the applicant's proposed traffic safety protocols sufficient.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and license were approved in principle.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey addition to an existing four-storey residential building.

The proposed development would add 40 units, increase the maximum height and density, and reduce the required parking and amenity space.

The Tribunal found that the proposed intensification was appropriate for the transit-oriented downtown location, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence supporting a reduced parking rate of 0.57 spaces per unit without requiring a holding provision for Transportation Demand Management measures.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant sought minor variances to reduce five lot setbacks to permit the construction of an L-shaped home and an inground pool.

The City's Committee of Adjustment authorized the variances, and two immediate neighbours appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed reduced setbacks would result in an imposing structure, inconsistent streetscapes, massing and overshadowing issues, and privacy concerns.

Relying on uncontradicted planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the variances failed to meet the requirements of section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot to facilitate the development of two duplexes.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots conformed to the City's Official Plan policies requiring new lots to reflect the general scale and character of the surrounding lands.

The Tribunal rejected the opposing expert's limited study area, finding that a broader contextual analysis demonstrated the proposed lots were similar in size to other lots in the wider neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed in part and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the City of Ottawa to regulate short-term rentals (STRs).

The appellant argued that 'dedicated' STRs (without a principal residence requirement) should be allowed in mixed-use zones that permit both hotels and dwellings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that dedicated STRs are commercial uses that negatively affect housing supply and affordability, and are incompatible with residential functions even in mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal also found that the by-laws do not unlawfully restrict legal non-conforming rights and declined to recognize specific properties as legal non-conforming due to insufficient evidence.

A request by the City to extend the temporary use period of the by-law was also denied.

The Applicant/Appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of five street townhouse dwellings on a property previously used as a Masonic Hall.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the requested amendments.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of minor variances to permit a 3-bedroom basement apartment.

The requested variances were to increase the maximum floor area from 70 sq.m to 130 sq.m and to reduce the minimum parking space length in the garage from 6.0m to 5.7m.

The Tribunal found that the floor area variance failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it effectively created a duplex rather than a subordinate accessory unit.

However, the Tribunal authorized the parking space variance, finding the 30 cm reduction to be minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 41.1% for a two-storey dwelling on a lot within a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was generally consistent with the existing neighbourhood and maintained the required yard setbacks.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant 18 minor variances to permit a 67-unit standard condominium townhouse development.

The variances related to density, building height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping.

The City supported the variances at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal to adopt a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the severance of two existing residential lots into three lots for single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed reductions in minimum lot area and frontage represented appropriate 'gentle intensification' consistent with provincial and regional policies.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for increased maximum lot coverage, finding that the proposed 34% coverage on smaller lots would be an overdevelopment incompatible with the planned built form context of the stable residential neighbourhood.

An interim order was issued pending finalization of the zoning by-law amendment and provisional consent.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consent to sever a property to create three new lots and one retained lot for semi-detached dwellings.

While the proposal met zoning requirements and provincial intensification policies, the Tribunal found it did not conform to the City's Official Plan policies regarding compatibility and fit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the opposing planning expert, concluding that the proposed lot widths and built form failed to respect the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent applications to sever the rear portions of two deep lots to create two new lots fronting onto a private laneway.

The proposed lots would require access and servicing through a municipal 0.3-metre reserve, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances would create isolated lots that do not respect the existing lotting pattern, contrary to the Official Plan's neighbourhood character policies.

Given the cumulative uncertainties regarding servicing, access, and the lack of jurisdiction to compel the lifting of the municipal reserve, the Tribunal concluded the lands were not suitable for subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant sought a minor variance to permit a 3.0-metre balcony projection for a townhouse unit, double the 1.5-metre maximum permitted by the zoning by-law.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the enlarged balcony would create unacceptable adverse visual, noise, privacy, and overlook impacts on the abutting single-detached properties.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.