Michael Masschaele

Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) appealed the City's refusal of a Temporary Use By-law application to permit 24 transitional housing sleeping cabins on a property adjacent to an existing heavy industrial facility.

The central issue was whether the cabins should be classified as 'dwellings' or 'noise sensitive institutional purpose buildings' under provincial noise guidelines (NPC-300) for the purpose of determining land use compatibility.

The Tribunal found the cabins constituted dwellings, requiring more stringent noise mitigation.

Because the proposal introduced a sensitive land use immediately adjacent to a Class II industrial facility without adequate mitigation mechanisms, the Tribunal held it was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the City Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey, 148-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the proposal was an appropriate form of redevelopment along a major arterial road, achieved a compatible interface with abutting land uses through strategic design methods, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for a metal recycling facility, raising concerns about noise and air emissions from a metal shredder.

The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable because an acoustic audit should have been required prior to issuance, the ECA conflicted with the Fire Code, and the facility was not authorized under municipal planning requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the Director properly considered the applicable regulatory and policy requirements, that requiring an acoustic audit after the ECA's issuance was consistent with Ministry practice, and that the Director was not required to resolve Fire Code or municipal planning issues before issuing the ECA.