Rita Jabbour

The appellant appealed the refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the creation of an undersized 8.2-hectare agricultural lot in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments did not have regard for the protection of agricultural resources under s. 2(b) of the Planning Act and were not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as they would result in the fragmentation of prime agricultural land and limit flexibility for future agricultural uses.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Windsor Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance and consent applications intended to facilitate a technical severance.

The severance aimed to correct an existing dwelling's encroachment and adjust an irregular lot shape.

The City supported the applications at the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and the consent satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeal was allowed and the applications were approved without conditions.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey residential apartment.

A neighbouring property owner was granted party status and opposed the development, citing concerns about density, scale, and neighbourhood compatibility.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant, finding that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the municipality to amend the zoning by-law with site-specific requirements limiting the maximum height to 14 metres and maximum density to 70 units per gross hectare.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to regularize an existing gazebo located near a municipal drain.

The core issue was a requested reduction of the minimum setback from the drain from 10.4 metres to 0 metres.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' expert engineering evidence, which confirmed the slope was stable and not prone to erosion, over the municipality's reliance on a 1988 drainage report.

Finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 17-lot residential subdivision.

The proposed development would change the zoning to permit single-detached and semi-detached dwellings on lands partially encumbered by environmental hazard designations.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County and Township Official Plans, and represents good planning by providing a mix of housing types while respecting natural hazards.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the storage of fireworks on lands located in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that while public safety concerns were addressed by federal licensing, the application was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because the appellants failed to provide a rigorous assessment of need or a comprehensive evaluation of alternative locations.

Furthermore, the application did not conform to the Town Official Plan as the proposed use was not part of a municipal initiative and was not demonstrated to be inappropriate within a settlement area.

The appeals were denied and the application was refused.

The applicant appealed the City of Windsor Committee of Adjustment's decisions denying a consent application and refusing a minor variance application to sever a property and reduce lot width and area for a new single-family dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement supporting the appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The appeals were allowed, the variances authorized, and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a minor variance to permit the construction of a 7.62-metre-tall accessory structure (a sports barn) on an estate residential lot, where the zoning by-law permitted a maximum height of 5.0 metres.

The applicants sought the variance to accommodate indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance maintained the general intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeals were dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to a 7.0-metre setback condition.