Jessica De Marinis

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The applicants appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit increased lot coverage for a new two-storey residential dwelling.

At the Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had already been set for a written settlement hearing and no further order was required.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 1,060 units in buildings ranging from 3 to 26 storeys.

The subject property is located in a predominantly low-rise suburban neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was inappropriately placed, incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character, and lacked adequate access to transit, community facilities, and active transportation networks.

The appeals were dismissed.

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.

The appellant, 257 5950 Ontario Ltd., appealed a decision by the Property Standards Committee regarding a compliance deadline for repairs or demolition of a dilapidated heritage barn.

The appellant sought an extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2023, to August 31, 2024, citing safety risks and complications arising from a municipal notice of intention to designate the property as cultural heritage.

The court, exercising its broad appellate powers under the Building Code Act, found that while the appellant had been dilatory, the intervening heritage designation notice rendered the Committee's deadline unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the compliance date was extended to August 31, 2024, with no costs awarded due to the split outcome and the appellant's prior inaction.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a residential lot and for a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.95 metres.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed infill development was compatible with the neighbourhood, met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act, and satisfied the criteria for consent.

The appeals were allowed, the variance was authorized, and provisional consent was granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed residential subdivision on a heritage property, the Tribunal considered a request by adjacent property owners to change their status from Participant to Party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding their presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues, but restricted them from raising new issues.

The Tribunal also finalized the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

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 Tribunal approved a settlement resolving Phase 2 and Phase 3 of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 32 (OPA 32) for the Southwest Georgetown Lands in the Town of Halton Hills.

The settlement modifies OPA 32 to establish a secondary plan permitting approximately 9,300 dwelling units, commercial and institutional uses, and a transportation network.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 32 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modifications, and the related private official plan amendment appeals were dismissed.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in the appearances section and schedule of a previous decision.

During the CMC, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Fairview LP, set procedural dates for the City's anticipated Motion for Partial Approval, and converted a scheduled 10-day hearing for Phase 1C (Aggregates) into a one-day written hearing to consider a settlement.

The Tribunal also directed the City to initiate the mediation assessment process for unresolved policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to permit a five-storey residential building with 74 units.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, filing dates, and the issues list.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. against the City of Niagara Falls' refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 5-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Niagara Stronger Together Incorporated on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a scoped draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled an 8-day hearing on the merits for October 2024.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The applications propose a nine-storey mixed-use building.

The parties advised they are awaiting assessment for Tribunal-led mediation and requested the scheduling of a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a nine-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Emshih Developments Inc. against the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a commercial development.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to inform it as soon as possible if a settlement is reached prior to the scheduled five-day merit hearing in February 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a property to create one new lot and one retained lot for the construction of two single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and municipal official plans, and represents good planning.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Phelps Homes Ltd. and JTG Holdings Ltd. against the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63.

The Tribunal granted party status to several landowners and participant status to a local citizens group member.

The parties agreed to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day merit hearing to commence in June 2024, along with a second Case Management Conference in February 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan for a proposed high-density residential development.

At the commencement of the scheduled 10-day hearing, the City brought a motion for an adjournment to review recent revisions to the development proposal.

The parties ultimately consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it served procedural fairness and the public interest, and approved a revised procedural order for a rescheduled 8-day hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refusing applications for consent to sever and minor variances for a property on Bellman Avenue.

The proposal sought to sever the existing lot into two, demolish the existing house, and construct a new two-storey residential dwelling on each lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontroverted land use planning evidence that the proposed lots and dwellings would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal found that the consent met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

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

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval within the statutory timeframes.

The applications sought to permit the development of two large industrial buildings comprising warehouse space and ancillary offices.

Prior to the scheduled merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed settlement, which includes a Light Industrial Zone, a Natural Heritage Zone, holding provisions, and conditional Site Plan approval, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.