Mark Touw

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of an Official Plan Amendment appeal brought by the applicant against the respondent municipality.

The order phases the hearing, with the Official Plan Amendment appeal to be heard first over a scheduled three-day period, followed by the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and filing deadlines for expert reports and witness statements.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development on a contaminated brownfield site.

The proposed development includes the remediation of the site, which features a Provincially Significant Wetland and is adjacent to the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Tribunal found that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan, as it promotes efficient land use, intensification, and brownfield remediation.

However, the Tribunal did not accept jurisdiction over the capping of the wetland itself, as the PPS prohibits development in such areas, and instead approved the applicant's alternative requested relief.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate the development of 45 stacked row dwelling condominiums.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised applications.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding the proposal represents good land use planning, constitutes appropriate residential intensification, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of up to 290 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement that increased setbacks from Collins Creek and removed single-detached dwellings in favour of townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a commercial development on private services, increased lot coverage, and outside storage.

The central issue was whether the proposal to use private servicing in an urban area constituted 'infilling' under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's expert evidence, finding that the proposal was not infilling or minor rounding out, and that it failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the County Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, which explicitly required municipal services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-unit dwelling with modified performance standards, including reduced parking requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it promotes residential intensification in an appropriate location.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.