Ryan Ferrari

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's conditional approval of consent and minor variance applications intended to permit the severance of a parcel of land and the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised applications and conditions of approval.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the statutory criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to authorize the provisional consent and minor variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the failure of the City of Hamilton to make a decision on a proposed multiblock industrial subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised Draft Plan.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised plan conforms to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, satisfies the criteria of section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and appropriately addresses environmental and transportation concerns.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to delete a self-storage warehouse as a permitted use from site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed five-storey self-storage warehouse represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners, concluding that the development would efficiently use a vacant, constrained property and facilitate the urbanization of the adjacent road.

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 residential development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, amending the Zoning By-law and approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Municipality's denial of a consent application to sever a 2.8-hectare residential lot containing two dwellings from a 37.9-hectare farm parcel.

The appellants argued the dwellings were surplus to their farming operation following farm consolidation.

The Tribunal found the application premature under s. 51(24)(b) of the Planning Act because the property was subject to a site-specific zoning by-law prohibiting further severances, and no zoning by-law amendment application was before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also noted the severance would further reduce an already undersized agricultural parcel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Hamilton appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to front, side, and rear yard setbacks, and an increase in maximum lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The variances were authorized subject to a condition that the development be generally in keeping with the submitted site plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property to create two lots for single-detached dwellings.

The proposal required variances for reduced lot width, reduced maneuvering space, and front yard parking.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, preferring the applicant's planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification compatible with the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal found the City planner's evidence unpersuasive and noted concerns regarding his impartiality.

The consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the creation of two residential lots for single detached dwellings.

The proposed variances included reduced lot widths, reduced maneuvering space, and permitting two parking spaces in the front yard.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the proposed development was uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood, not compatible with the neighbourhood scale, and did not maintain existing streetscape patterns.

The Tribunal concluded the consent did not meet the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances failed the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appeals were dismissed.