Marcus Letourneau

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City of Kenora's proposed expropriation of the Kenricia Hotel for community improvement and heritage rehabilitation.

The owner argued the expropriation was unnecessary and that they were willing to collaborate on restoration.

The Tribunal found that the City's objectives were clear and legitimate, and that in the absence of any definite alternative plan from the owner after 20 years, the expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's goals.

Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. appealed the City of Cambridge's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted intensification on its site, but at a lesser scale than Haastown proposed.

A neighbouring resident also appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment, arguing against the density and traffic impacts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed Haastown's appeals in part, approving its revised proposal for three residential towers of 22, 20, and 17 storeys with up to 635 units.

The Tribunal found that the site's location within a Major Transit Station Area supported the higher density to promote transit use, and that the proposed design achieved compatibility with the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal also found that traffic impacts were acceptable, heritage attributes of an adjacent property would be conserved, and that Holding provisions were unnecessary as outstanding matters could be addressed through Site Plan Approval.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and consent applications to sever a residential lot containing a heritage dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement to create two lots with site-specific zoning provisions, addressing heritage conservation and tree protection.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, finding the settlement consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.