Kevin Bechard

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of 19 row dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that included the removal of a contested woodlot, supported by uncontroverted expert ecological and planning evidence indicating the woodlot was in poor health and its removal would not negatively impact the broader natural heritage system.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposal consistent with provincial policy, representative of good planning, and in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the conditions of draft plan approval for an 18-lot residential subdivision in the Township of Oro-Medonte.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the disputed conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised conditions.

The Town of Pelham adopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBLA) to regulate indoor cannabis and industrial hemp cultivation, primarily to address odour concerns.

Several cannabis producers appealed.

Prior to the hearing, Phoena withdrew its appeal, and Redecan reached a settlement with the Town, which the Tribunal approved as representing good planning.

Woodstock continued its appeal, arguing it should be recognized as an existing facility and granted a site-specific exception.

The Tribunal dismissed Woodstock's appeal, noting it had never formally filed an application and must pursue approvals through the standard process established by the new OPA.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use 11-storey building.

The parties reached a settlement in principle.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments satisfied all statutory tests, had regard for provincial interests, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the amendments in principle, and withheld the final order pending the fulfillment of the City's conditions.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent applications to sever the rear portions of two deep lots to create two new lots fronting onto a private laneway.

The proposed lots would require access and servicing through a municipal 0.3-metre reserve, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances would create isolated lots that do not respect the existing lotting pattern, contrary to the Official Plan's neighbourhood character policies.

Given the cumulative uncertainties regarding servicing, access, and the lack of jurisdiction to compel the lifting of the municipal reserve, the Tribunal concluded the lands were not suitable for subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

Sterling Homes appealed the City of Toronto's passage of a zoning by-law to correct a side-yard setback for one lot in a five-lot residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement to reduce the setback from 11.75 metres to 1.8 metres, reflecting the general by-law standard.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised by-law consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the settlement approved.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a 0.20 hectare parkland dedication, the inclusion of commercial space, and the use of holding provisions to address servicing and access.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial and municipal policies, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments were approved in principle.

The applicants sought minor variances for height and lot coverage to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling with a cabana and pool.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the application, and a neighbour appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed dwelling was compatible with the established residential neighbourhood and that the variances were minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.