Ira Todd Kagan

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings leading up to and including a 21-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals of the City of Toronto's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and By-law No. 235-2-16, which designates the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District and Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a high-density mixed-use development consisting of six residential towers, an elementary school, and commercial space.

A neighbouring resident raised concerns regarding shadowing and loss of privacy.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the development's design mitigates shadow and privacy impacts, and that the proposal is consistent with provincial and regional planning policies for intensification along a transit corridor.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals, and scheduled a 12-day merit hearing to commence in July 2024.

The applicants appealed the Town of Grimsby's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a seven-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use high-rise development.

At a settlement hearing, the parties advised that the Official Plan Amendment was no longer required and presented a detailed Zoning By-law Amendment for approval in principle.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented desirable housing intensification that supports transit and conforms with the applicable Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the Official Plan Amendment appeal and allowed the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal in part, approving it in principle subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 29-storey rental apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the proposal.

The Tribunal found the amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment approved in principle, and final approval withheld pending the submission of the final form of the by-law.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a full settlement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of specified conditions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, specifically the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, along with related site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to the Secondary Plan's parking and holding symbol policies, finding they support transit-oriented development and conform with provincial and regional policies.

The Tribunal also approved the site-specific zoning and subdivision appeals in principle, subject to conditions, to facilitate high-density, mixed-use developments along the Steeles Avenue corridor.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals to the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 615 (Yonge Street North Secondary Plan).

Morguard Investments Ltd. and Revenue Properties Company Ltd. brought a motion to have their Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) appeal heard together with the OPA 615 appeals.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) requested party status.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the TCDSB non-appellant party status and ordered that the SASP appeal be heard together with the OPA 615 appeals to ensure procedural efficiency.

The appellants appealed the Town of Innisfil's Community Benefit Charge By-Law No. 040-23 under section 37(17) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested Tribunal-led mediation to narrow or resolve the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal ordered the matter held in abeyance pending the outcome of mediation and directed the parties to provide a status update in 120 days.

The appellant appealed the City's Parkland Dedication By-law under s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were awaiting provincial regulations under the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 regarding parkland dedication requirements for encumbered lands.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide an update by June 14, 2024, and took no further action in the interim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bond Head Properties Eight Inc. against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury and County of Simcoe.

The amendments would facilitate the development of a trucking company head office and warehouse facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority on consent.

As the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 9, 2024, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amended procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 15-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2024, regarding appeals by The Elia Corporation concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments and a proposed plan of subdivision in the City of Mississauga.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local group, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator for a mediation assessment.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Grimsby's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments, the parties advised they had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the settlement agreement and directed the parties to provide the necessary materials, including an expert affidavit and draft instruments, in advance.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to communicate with the participant, Harmony Group of Companies, regarding the settlement materials.

The applicants appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the hearing.

A 10-day video hearing was scheduled, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was finalized and appended to the decision.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding a site plan application for a drive-through facility.

The City of Toronto had deemed the application incomplete, requiring a Storm Water Management Report and a Hydro-geological Report.

The Tribunal found that the drive-through facility triggered the site plan application, but since no earthworks were proposed, the request for the reports was neither reasonable nor warranted.

The Tribunal determined that the application was complete as of May 9, 2023, when the last required materials were submitted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant for a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the municipality's failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal deferred a request for status from a neighbouring property owner to allow for preliminary discussions with the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 12-day hearing on the merits.

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

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

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the finalization of the amendments to the City's satisfaction.