Tracy Zander

The appellant appealed the Township of Champlain's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments intended to permit a 95-unit residential development consisting of townhouses and a multi-residential block.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and CN Rail reached a settlement that included mitigation measures for the adjacent rail operations.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conformed to the applicable Official Plan, and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a retail store on a rural property.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that included site-specific performance standards, such as increased setbacks and minimum landscaped open space, to ensure compatibility with an abutting residential property.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Township brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of its refusal to enact a zoning by-law amendment that would have permitted a gun range and shooting club.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's notice of appeal was deficient because it failed to provide the required reasons and explanations for how the decision was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the Township, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a licensed aggregate pit operation.

The tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed pit is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and will minimize environmental and public safety impacts through appropriate setbacks and mitigation measures.

The tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increased horizontal surface area for a waterfront deck within the 30-metre water setback.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised, reduced variance request.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance meets the four tests under the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a Cannabis Production Facility and reduce setbacks on a rural commercial property.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal, which reuses an existing building and includes an air treatment system, is consistent with provincial policies and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-laws were amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of two consent applications to create three lots (two severed, one retained) on a rural property.

The City initially opposed the applications due to the property's proximity to an active aggregate pit and natural heritage features.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement after the applicant provided a comprehensive Mineral Resource Impact Assessment demonstrating no conflict with future aggregate extraction.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning and aggregate resources evidence, finding the proposed severances met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and conformed to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the consents were granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard four motions to implement settlements regarding appeals of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Comprehensive Official Plan.

The motions sought modifications to land use designations, mapping, and policies related to aggregate resources, agricultural lands, and natural heritage systems.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and geotechnical evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motions and ordered the requested modifications to the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a waterpark and resort development.

The appellant, a self-represented area resident, failed to provide qualified expert evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the applicant and the Township that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a food distribution warehouse on rural lands partially within a floodplain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding natural heritage, traffic safety, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Study or hydrogeological study.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was not within or adjacent to natural heritage features requiring an EIS, and that the site's location near a highway interchange was appropriate for transport-related uses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the official plan.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a parking lot and storage compound for boats and recreational vehicles on an abutting property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding stormwater management, visual impacts, traffic, and environmental protection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and that specific concerns regarding buffering and drainage can be appropriately addressed at the site plan control stage.