Scott Allen

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding two site-specific appeals of the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

The appeals concerned properties at 560-562 Wellington Street and 3080 Bostwick Road.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed site-specific policies, which recognize existing zoning permissions and secondary plan permissions for increased height and density, represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policy.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and modified the Official Plan accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a six-storey, 43-unit residential condominium.

The parties reached a settlement, which the City Council endorsed.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the planning instruments.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent application to sever a surplus farm dwelling following a farm consolidation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the severance would not result in the loss of active agricultural lands and met all criteria under the Provincial Policy Statement and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions agreed upon in minutes of settlement.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a high-rise mixed-use development.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeals without a hearing under the Planning Act and Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant failed to provide expert planning evidence or disclose any genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds to warrant a full hearing on the merits.