Jacob Polowin

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-unit dwelling with modified performance standards, including reduced parking requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it promotes residential intensification in an appropriate location.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that only partially approved minor variances required to add a fifth storey to a previously approved four-storey apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to parking rates, setbacks, and technical variances related to condominium boundaries.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of Zoning By-law No. 62-21, which restricted the expansion of its existing cannabis production and processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve an amended version of the by-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended by-law, which establishes site-specific setbacks and excludes outdoor growth or storage, is consistent with provincial policies and constitutes good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to enact the amended by-law.

The City of Ottawa and Shepherds of Good Hope brought motions to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an eight-storey supportive housing development.

The Tribunal allowed the City's motion, finding the appellant failed to properly serve the notice of appeal as required by s. 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25), concluding the notice of appeal failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with applicable policies and failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into two parcels, each containing one half of a newly rebuilt semi-detached dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances for reduced lot area met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The Tribunal also granted permissions to expand the legal non-conforming building envelope under section 45(2), finding the changes desirable and without undue adverse impact.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting provisional consent and authorizing the variances subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area for a proposed triplex.

The subject property, located near transit stations, required a variance for lot area due to its shallow depth, though it met all other zoning performance standards.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and a supportive municipal staff report, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies encouraging residential intensification.

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

The appellant appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the City of Ottawa to regulate short-term rentals (STRs).

The appellant argued that 'dedicated' STRs (without a principal residence requirement) should be allowed in mixed-use zones that permit both hotels and dwellings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that dedicated STRs are commercial uses that negatively affect housing supply and affordability, and are incompatible with residential functions even in mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal also found that the by-laws do not unlawfully restrict legal non-conforming rights and declined to recognize specific properties as legal non-conforming due to insufficient evidence.

A request by the City to extend the temporary use period of the by-law was also denied.

At a pre-hearing conference in a municipal drain matter, the Tribunal considered whether to accept an appeal purportedly brought under s. 54 of the Drainage Act from the Court of Revision.

The Tribunal held that the moving landowners had not filed an appeal to the Court of Revision and did not dispute their assessment, so there was no appealable decision under s. 54.

The concerns raised to the Court of Revision were outside that body's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal therefore declined to accept the appeal, while indicating that any further challenge to the drainage report would have to proceed, if at all, by a late motion seeking an extension of time for an appeal under ss. 48 and 100.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant provisional consent and minor variances to create four lots for the construction of four triplexes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and that the requested variances for reduced lot width and area were minor and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.