Matt Johnston

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application and the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for wetland relocation.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a revised draft plan for an industrial business park that protects and enhances natural heritage features, including expanding and partially relocating an existing wetland.

Based on uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, addressed participant concerns, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny consent and a minor variance for a property at 40 Church Street.

The proposal sought to sever the lot into six residential lots for townhouse dwellings, requiring a minor variance for reduced minimum lot area on one lot.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development conforms with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, represents gentle intensification, and satisfies the criteria under the Planning Act.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton'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 five-building industrial subdivision.

The proposal included relocating and expanding an existing wetland to create a natural heritage compensation area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision in principle on an interim basis pending finalization of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential development with buildings ranging from 3 to 20 storeys.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represent good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified OPA and ZBA.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 59-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 20-storey and 18-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented over-intensification and was not compatible with the existing low-to-mid-rise neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal also noted the lack of a required Visual Impact Assessment to evaluate impacts on adjacent cultural heritage resources, including Battlefield Park.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was not approved.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate a residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included protections for a great blue heron habitat.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 1,060 units in buildings ranging from 3 to 26 storeys.

The subject property is located in a predominantly low-rise suburban neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was inappropriately placed, incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character, and lacked adequate access to transit, community facilities, and active transportation networks.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for an eight-storey mixed-use building.

While the parties agreed on most conditions, they disputed a Visual Impact Assessment condition, which the Tribunal found reasonable.

The central issue was the effect of the newly enacted Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 (OPAA), which retroactively revoked the Ministerially Approved official plan that had facilitated the development's height and density.

The Tribunal held that s. 3(2) of the OPAA imposes a mandatory official plan conformity test on site plan appeals, and that the deemed conformity provision in s. 24(4) of the Planning Act could not save the site plan because the underlying official plan was deemed never to have existed.

Finding the site plan did not conform to the retroactively reinstated official plan, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to increase the permitted number of storeys from six to seven for a mixed-use building.

The appeal was converted to a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances, including two setback variances for balconies, met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions, including a cap on the number of dwelling units and a requirement for a minimum percentage of two-bedroom units.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Site Plan Approval to permit a residential building.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 14-storey building with 227 units, including an affordable housing component.

Based on uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an eight-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning and urban design evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal represented good planning and was consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeal as unnecessary due to a recent municipal policy update, and allowed the ZBA appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever lands owned by a railway company to facilitate a sale to the applicant for future redevelopment.

During the hearing, it was discovered that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) had not received notice, leading to an adjournment and HDI being added as a party on consent.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to authorize minor variances for an industrial development consisting of a warehouse facility with loading bays.

The appellant, a neighbouring residential property owner, raised concerns regarding noise, compatibility, and property values.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances, subject to conditions including a noise attenuation wall and further acoustic testing, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 54-unit residential development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, optimizes the use of land and infrastructure, and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and satisfies the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.