Ian Barrett

The appellant appealed the City of Thorold's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a three-storey, 34-unit apartment building on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the proposed residential use, increased density, and built form were appropriate and compatible with the existing neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planner, concluding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and local Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-laws.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed his appeal of a zoning by-law without a hearing.

The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policy or the official plan.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and made no error of law in applying the test for dismissing an appeal without a hearing under the Planning Act.

The moving party had failed to provide responding affidavit evidence or expert planning opinions to support his appeal grounds before the Tribunal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 17 and the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan regarding the identification of natural heritage and hydrologic features on their lands.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the policies and land use designations, supported by uncontroverted ecological and planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for a single dwelling and driveway on a property designated as Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development met the objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, constituted a permitted use, and satisfied the applicable development criteria and Provincial Policy Statement natural heritage policies.

The Hearing Officer recommended that the decision to refuse the permit not be confirmed and that a development permit be issued subject to conditions.