Jennifer Meader

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a 29-storey mixed-use development.

Following a previous Tribunal decision granting the appeal, the parties reached a settlement on the final form of the planning instruments.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan subject to conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's expert reply witness statements, arguing they constituted improper reply evidence and an attempt to split the respondent's case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the rule against splitting a case applies to the presentation of evidence at a hearing, not to pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the reply evidence was responsive to the appellant's expert reports and that striking the evidence would prejudice the respondent and the public interest.

The appellant was granted the opportunity to file sur-reply witness statements to remedy any potential prejudice.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Zoning By-law No. 17-240 and Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 69.

The City and the remaining city-wide appellants, Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited and Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, reached a settlement involving modifications to the commercial and mixed-use zone regulations.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law in force.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

Beachside Development Inc. sought costs against Manning Developments Inc. following the dismissal of Manning's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal found that Manning's appeal lacked any land use planning grounds and was filed to delay Beachside's development and advance Manning's own servicing dispute with the Municipality.

Concluding that Manning's conduct was patently unreasonable and vexatious, the Tribunal awarded costs to Beachside on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $12,500.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a self-storage facility.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development on vacant lands within an existing urban area promotes efficient land use and conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, finding the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

At a case management conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to Rex Clair Limited without objection.

The Tribunal also noted the assumption of an appeal by a successor in title and scheduled a further case management conference for April 2022 to consider the amendments.

The Applicant/Appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of five street townhouse dwellings on a property previously used as a Masonic Hall.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the requested amendments.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the creation of two residential lots for single detached dwellings.

The proposed variances included reduced lot widths, reduced maneuvering space, and permitting two parking spaces in the front yard.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the proposed development was uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood, not compatible with the neighbourhood scale, and did not maintain existing streetscape patterns.

The Tribunal concluded the consent did not meet the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances failed the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a case management conference to address scheduling issues for a motion by the appellant to strike portions of the municipality's reply witness statements in an appeal under the Development Charges Act.

As the motion decision was required before the hearing on the merits, and scheduling constraints prevented an earlier oral hearing, the Tribunal scheduled the motion for the original hearing start date and adjourned the five-day hearing on the merits to a later date.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey development, the applicant indicated an intent to pursue a 19-storey development.

The Tribunal declined to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, directing the applicant to make a formal resubmission of the revised plans to the municipality.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider the revised proposal and any jurisdictional motions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kitchener's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to nine individuals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and set a 20-day hearing to commence in August 2022.

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby's approval of a temporary use zoning by-law amendment that permitted an existing rural residential structure to be used as a place of worship for three years.

The appellants raised concerns regarding traffic, parking, and building code compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert evidence that the temporary use was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and applicable Official Plans, and could be safely accommodated by existing infrastructure.

The Tribunal approved the by-law in principle, withholding its final order until a Change of Use Permit is granted.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming video hearing regarding appeals by the Ancaster Village Heritage Community against the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consent applications for the property at 15 Church Street.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties, and the issues list.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties advised that Tribunal-led mediation had resulted in an agreement in principle for the McMaster University appeals.

The Tribunal consolidated the McMaster appeals and scheduled a potential settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also heard updates regarding the West End Home Builders' Association and 2362302 Ontario Inc. appeals, noting significant progress, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to consider a draft Procedural Order for appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence on June 13, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the Niagara Home Builders' Association against the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties to the hearing, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of filing dates.

The appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a hot mix asphalt plant on a portion of their property.

The Tribunal found that the proposed split land use designation, designating the eastern portion as General Industrial, conformed to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined that the asphalt plant is a permitted use within the General Industrial designation.

Opposing parties argued the plant would cause adverse odour effects on a nearby food packaging facility and negatively impact the area's economic development.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the food facility was not a sensitive land use, the odour modelling was based on unrealistic maximum operating scenarios, and the plant's design met urban design policies.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved on an interim basis pending an Environmental Compliance Approval and site plan application.