David Galbraith

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.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's Zoning By-law No. 2023-156, which rezoned their properties to a Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES-4).

The parties reached a settlement to apply a Residential Five Zone (RES-5) to the subject properties, permitting a wider range of low-density dwelling types.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement supports appropriate infilling and intensification consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an infill development of 30 residential units, including stacked and street-fronting townhouses.

The City opposed the applications solely on urban design and compatibility grounds, arguing the stacked townhouses did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the City's compatibility analysis was too narrow and rigidly applied.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development was sufficiently compatible with the broader neighbourhood, satisfied all statutory tests, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 30-unit infill development consisting of stacked and street-fronting townhouses.

The City opposed the applications solely on urban design and compatibility grounds, arguing the stacked townhouses did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding the development was sufficiently compatible with the broader neighbourhood context and satisfied all statutory planning tests.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the requested amendments.

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their minor variance and consent applications.

The applications sought to sever a residential property into three lots, requiring variances for reduced minimum lot area and frontage.

The City did not attend the hearing, and the appellants presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal represented appropriate residential infill, was compatible with the neighbourhood, and satisfied all legislative tests under the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances required to construct a four-storey apartment building while retaining existing heritage buildings.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback, increased building height, and reduced parking ratios.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies encouraging intensification and transit-oriented development, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent application to sever a residential property into three lots.

The appellant argued the severance was incompatible with the neighbourhood and failed procedurally.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the applicant and the City that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and complied with the Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

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.