Allan Ramsay

Galibier Materials Inc. appealed the Township of Springwater's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the expansion of an existing aggregate pit.

The Minister of Natural Resources also referred the associated Licence Application to the Tribunal.

Objectors raised concerns regarding air quality impacts from dust and the preservation of a wildlife corridor.

The Tribunal found that the proposed Dust Management Plan and revised phasing and rehabilitation plans adequately addressed the concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approved the planning instruments, and directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to conditions, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to create two residential lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed undersized lots did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's expert planner, concluding that the proposal failed to meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The moving party, Friends of Ball’s Bridge & Little Lakes, brought a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing hearing regarding a proposed gravel pit.

The new evidence included an MNR inspection report, a corrected property survey, wood turtle sighting documents, and videos of dust emissions.

The Tribunal applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

The Tribunal admitted the MNR report, the survey, and the wood turtle documents, finding them relevant and not obtainable before the filing deadlines.

However, the Tribunal refused to admit the dust videos, finding they could have been produced earlier and their late admission would prejudice the responding party, who had already closed its case.

Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. appealed the City of Cambridge's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted intensification on its site, but at a lesser scale than Haastown proposed.

A neighbouring resident also appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment, arguing against the density and traffic impacts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed Haastown's appeals in part, approving its revised proposal for three residential towers of 22, 20, and 17 storeys with up to 635 units.

The Tribunal found that the site's location within a Major Transit Station Area supported the higher density to promote transit use, and that the proposed design achieved compatibility with the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal also found that traffic impacts were acceptable, heritage attributes of an adjacent property would be conserved, and that Holding provisions were unnecessary as outstanding matters could be addressed through Site Plan Approval.

The Appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the permitted lot coverage for accessory buildings from 10% to 11.5%, to allow an existing second dwelling to be converted into a storage building.

The Town and a neighbouring property owner opposed the application, arguing the Tribunal should impose regulations on an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) the Appellant planned to build in an existing garage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the ARU issues were irrelevant to the requested relief and that the minor increase in lot coverage constituted good planning.

The Tribunal also dismissed a motion for recusal based on alleged perception of bias during case management.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new fourplex and garden suite.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant revised the plans to eliminate and reduce several variances, responding to concerns from the City's planner.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the amendments to be minor and evaluated the revised variances against the four tests under the Planning Act.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the appellant's planner, the Tribunal found that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor.

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

The City of Brampton appealed a decision regarding a minor variance application that sought to increase maximum lot coverage from 30% to 39.47%.

The City provided uncontested planning evidence that the variance failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants subsequently consented to the City's appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and did not authorize the variance.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to permit a self-storage facility on a property with an existing automotive use.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included additional conditions requiring a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area to be used for office space and adherence to specific design plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and its subsequent extension, which temporarily prohibited new gravel pits and quarries on certain lands to allow the Town to review and update its aggregate resource policies.

The appellant, who sought to develop an aggregate operation on affected lands, argued the ICBL was unnecessary, improperly motivated to thwart its application, and failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for ICBLs and found that the Town strictly complied with section 38 of the Planning Act, substantiated a valid planning rationale for the policy review, ensured conformity with the Official Plan, and conducted the review fairly and expeditiously within the statutory timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the front and rear yard setbacks, an increase in lot coverage, and an increase in rear yard projection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

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

The Tribunal heard appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBLA) to permit the expansion of an existing place of worship located outside the Urban Boundary within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area (Specialty Crop Area).

The appellants argued that the expansion of a non-agricultural use in a prime agricultural area was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan's requirement that expansions bring the use more into conformity with the Plan.

The Tribunal found that the subject lands had not been farmed in 90 years, the expansion would occur entirely on the existing property, and there would be no adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal interpreted the Greenbelt Plan's 'more in conformity' test as applying to conversions of uses, not expansions of existing buildings.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeals, approved the OPA, and allowed the ZBLA appeal, finding the applications consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, and representing good planning.

Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey, 74-unit apartment building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, but a residents' group opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the neighbourhood and not transit-supportive.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is within a strategic growth area, conforms to local and provincial planning policies, and employs appropriate design measures to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's denial of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into four lots for the development of semi-detached dwellings with additional dwelling units.

A neighbourhood association opposed the development, raising concerns about intensification, compatibility, traffic, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding the property appropriate for infill development and concluding the proposal would not cause adverse traffic or stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent.

Minto Communities Inc. appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control to permit a 16-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal heard competing expert planning evidence regarding the proposal's scale, massing, and compatibility with the surrounding Traditional Mainstreet area.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning by promoting urban intensification and housing options.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments and site plan were approved on an interim basis.

The City of Oshawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the required front yard landscaped open space from 50% to 45.9% to accommodate a parking space for an accessory apartment.

The City argued the variance would necessitate the removal of a municipal tree and a fire hydrant to allow a curb cut.

The Tribunal found that the practical challenges of operationalizing the variance, such as tree removal, were separate from the planning merits of the variance itself.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and dismissed the appeal, authorizing the variance subject to a condition.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of 38- and 43-storey towers with 962 rental units and reduced parking.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented an overdevelopment with insufficient parking and inappropriate massing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development is transit-supportive, aligns with the objectives of the Key Development Area, and is consistent with provincial, regional, and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the final forms of the amendments and related site plan are finalized.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to delete a self-storage warehouse as a permitted use from site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed five-storey self-storage warehouse represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners, concluding that the development would efficiently use a vacant, constrained property and facilitate the urbanization of the adjacent road.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a shoreline residential lot on Six Mile Lake.

The requested variances involved increased lot coverage and reduced interior side yard and building separation setbacks.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the sleeping cabin was compatible with existing residential uses, would not have significant visual or privacy impacts, and represented good planning.

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

The Town of Oakville appealed a minor variance application by Jan and Joe Manta regarding the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement in writing.

Based on the affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the amended variance to permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 44.54%, subject to conditions, without requiring further notice under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan Amendment to permit a 372-unit high-density residential development.

The proposed development included a 20-storey and 6-storey building connected by a podium, along with townhouse units.

The City argued the proposal represented over-intensification and was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and regional/municipal official plans, and represented good land use planning along a major transit corridor.