Celeste Phillips

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and consents to sever to permit the development of 10 townhomes and 3 new lots.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and provisional consent was granted.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a golf course maintenance building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised site plan drawings and conditions to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence from both parties supporting the settlement.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The Township of Georgian Bay brought a motion for directions regarding the Ontario Land Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the terms of a condominium agreement required as a condition of draft plan approval under section 51 of the Planning Act.

The appellant developers argued that an impasse had been reached and the Tribunal should intervene to resolve the implementation of the condition.

The Tribunal held that while it has the authority to assess the reasonableness of a condition and amend it, it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to dictate the specific contents of a subdivision or condominium agreement or to compel a municipality to execute such an agreement.

The Tribunal also struck portions of an affidavit from the record on the basis of settlement privilege.

The Township's motion was granted and the issue regarding the content of the agreement was struck from the issues list.

The applicants appealed the conditions of approval for two draft plans of subdivision in the Oak Bay Golf Marina Community.

The parties reached a settlement to extend the draft plan approval lapsing date, revise conditions related to a secondary access road, and update phasing and unit counts.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the revised conditions and draft plans were approved.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Penetanguishene's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

One appellant requested an adjournment, which was granted.

A participant challenged the validity of the second appellant's appeal, but the Tribunal found the appeal valid as the appellant had made written submissions prior to the by-law's passage.

The Tribunal approved a proposed settlement for the second appellant, amending the zoning by-law to permit a 31-unit townhouse development, finding it consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The remainder of the by-law was deemed in force, save for lands subject to the remaining appeal.

The applicant appealed the Town of Penetanguishene's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to facilitate a residential townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 31-unit freehold townhouse development.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The Ontario Land Tribunal initiated a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 67-unit residential building.

The appellant, a self-represented individual, failed to provide expert planning evidence or demonstrate a triable issue, relying instead on broad questions and an affidavit from a local resident planner who could not provide independent expert opinion.

Applying the East Beach test, the Tribunal found the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground worthy of adjudication and dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to s. 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The applicant constructed two multi-unit residential buildings and sought to rent each unit to up to seven students.

The City opposed, arguing that renting to more than four students would classify the units as 'boarding, lodging or rooming houses', which were not permitted in the zone, and would violate the Building Code.

The applicant sought declarations that the project was a 'stacked townhouse' and could legally rent to seven occupants per unit.

The court found that the students living together constituted a 'single household unit' and therefore the units were 'dwelling units' rather than boarding houses under both the zoning by-law and the Building Code.

The court granted the applicant's declarations and ordered the City to issue a final occupancy permit without conditions on the number of occupants.