Trevor Hawkins

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

The appellants appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The parties reached a partial settlement regarding site-specific modifications for a proposed parking structure at 201 Elmira Road South, specifically reducing the minimum parking stall dimensions while applying the 1995 Zoning By-law regulations to the rest of the structure.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site-specific modifications.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's zoning by-law amendment regarding a proposed multi-storey student housing development.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the by-law to address site-specific issues including density, parking, and building setbacks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised by-law amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Stratford Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application seeking to increase the maximum permitted height for a new detached dwelling from 10.0 metres to 11.39 metres.

The variance was requested to accommodate an elevator shaft hidden within the roofline.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found, based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence supported by the City, that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 24-unit stacked townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised amendments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the amendments to the 1995 Zoning By-law but noted it lacked jurisdiction to approve anticipated amendments to the City's new 2023 Zoning By-law, which was not before it.

The appellant appealed a non-decision by the City's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to permit the development of an industrial mall.

The requested variances sought a reduced parking rate and an increase in the maximum impervious area.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the non-decision.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence and a settlement reached between the parties, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal, including adjusting tower heights and widths, and reducing parking rates.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended instruments.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of three two-storey townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms with provincial and municipal planning policies, and constitutes good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 77-unit townhouse development on an underutilized industrial site.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal, which included a holding provision to phase development pending wastewater treatment plant expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment as it was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.