Katie Pandey

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a contractor's business on an agricultural lot.

The subject property is designated as prime agricultural land.

The appellants argued the use was small-scale, compatible with surrounding farms, and that no reasonable alternative locations existed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed use was not an agricultural, agriculture-related, or on-farm diversified use, and that reasonable alternative locations existed in nearby settlement areas.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed ZBA was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the County Official Plan, and did not represent good land use planning.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that facilitated a high-rise residential development.

The appellants, who owned adjacent properties, primarily objected to the proposed alignment of a new stratified north-south public local road, arguing it would inequitably restrict their own future development potential.

The Tribunal found that the approved road alignment, which was the City's preferred option following a transportation master plan update, represented good planning and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal also noted that the approved development included a significant community benefits package that could be jeopardized by altering the road alignment.

The appeals were dismissed.

The City of Hamilton appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The variances were authorized subject to a condition that the development be generally in keeping with the submitted site plan.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a severance of two adjacent properties to create three new residential lots.

The City opposed the application, arguing that the proposed lot frontages and areas were inconsistent with the established neighbourhood character and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicants' planning evidence that the neighbourhood featured an eclectic mix of lot sizes and that the proposed infill development was consistent with provincial and municipal intensification policies.