Casey Kulchycki

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant.

At the settlement hearing, a participant requested an adjournment to seek party status, which the Tribunal denied because the participant had not made prior submissions to Council as required by the Planning Act.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence and a settlement reached between the parties, the Tribunal found the revised proposal addressed traffic and compatibility concerns and represented good land use planning.

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

The appellant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development on the Westmount Shopping Centre lands.

The parties reached a settlement to permit low, mid, and high-rise residential buildings alongside commercial uses.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of six townhouse units on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

A neighboring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about traffic, scale, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed medium-density development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the development represents appropriate infill that is compatible with the surrounding area and directed the City to amend the zoning by-law subject to conditions regarding landscaping and buffering.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey apartment building and townhouses.

The core issue was whether there was adequate municipal wastewater servicing capacity for the proposed high-density residential development.

The Tribunal found that the existing sewage system lacked capacity, posing a high risk of basement flooding, and that the applicant's proposed alternative servicing solutions, including a lift station, were not feasible or permitted under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed amendment was premature, inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not conform to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was dismissed.

Beachside Development Inc. brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Manning Developments Inc. regarding a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Municipality of Lakeshore.

Manning's appeal was based on the Municipality's differing treatment of servicing allocation between Beachside's lands and Manning's adjacent lands.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that municipal servicing allocation is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, meaning the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was brought for the purpose of delay.