Scott Patterson

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The proposal sought to create six lots from four existing lots to construct single-family detached homes, requiring variances for reduced lot areas.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and the consent satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification and infill development.

The appellants appealed the failure of the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to permit 11 single detached homes.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and conditions of draft approval were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the refusal by the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment of their applications for consent and minor variances to facilitate the creation of a new lot and the construction of two new single detached houses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the consent application satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal relied on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate infill development and gentle intensification consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to decide on a consent application to create two new rural residential lots.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County Official Plan, and complies with Minimum Distance Separation formulae.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the zoning amendment and provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot to facilitate the development of two duplexes.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots conformed to the City's Official Plan policies requiring new lots to reflect the general scale and character of the surrounding lands.

The Tribunal rejected the opposing expert's limited study area, finding that a broader contextual analysis demonstrated the proposed lots were similar in size to other lots in the wider neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed in part and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township of Wilmot's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to sever an undeveloped parcel into two residential lots.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement contingent on determining a drainage solution.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region Official Plan, and Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the applications, with the order withheld until a satisfactory drainage solution is confirmed.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that building permits issued for a neighbouring townhouse development did not comply with a zoning by-law restricting development to one storey.

The applicants also brought a motion to amend their application to include an appeal under the Building Code Act and to stay construction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicants failed to appeal the permits within the statutory 20-day period and did not provide reasonable grounds for an extension.

The request for a stay of construction was also dismissed as the applicants failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

However, the court granted an order requiring the town to enforce a settlement agreement restricting the use of adjacent municipally-owned lands.