John Douglas Ewart

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to set directions for the Phase 2 hearing regarding an appeal for a draft Plan of Subdivision on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange an issues list and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a refused Zoning By-law Amendment application, the parties disagreed on whether the requirement for an Official Plan Amendment should be a separate threshold issue on the Issues List.

The Tribunal determined that the necessity of an Official Plan Amendment would be addressed through the adjudication of official plan conformity and directed the parties to remove it as a separate issue.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of a recreational dwelling on a vacant waterfront lot.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment that included a site-specific Shoreline Residential zone, a refined Environmental Constraint zone, and comprehensive environmental mitigation measures.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and environmental evidence, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit shoreline residential zoning and adjust environmental constraint boundaries on a property containing wetlands.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

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

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for 16 seasonal residential lots on the shoreline of Pigeon Lake.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted 'infill development' under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The Tribunal found that the proposal met the common usage definition of infill development and satisfied all requirements for the protection of key hydrologic and natural heritage features.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the draft plan of subdivision and amending the zoning by-law.

The Township of Ramara sought approval from the Ontario Land Tribunal under section 8(2) of the Township of Mara Act, 1986, for an amendment to its Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Levy By-law.

The amendment proposed to increase the base levy charged to properties offering short-term rental accommodations, treating them similarly to hotels.

The Tribunal found that there was a rational basis for the increased levies and that the amendment was fair and reasonable.

The by-law amendment was approved.

The applicant appealed the Town of Greater Napanee's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a permanent asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a local group, Keep Napanee Great, on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal by MacPherson Realty (Peterborough) Ltd. and others against the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The parties requested more time for settlement discussions and to finalize an Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for December 12, 2022, and provided directions for submitting materials if a settlement is reached or for setting a hearing date if not.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Lake of Bays, the Town of Huntsville, and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, supported by extensive environmental, cultural heritage, visual impact, and engineering studies, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions, including the protection of natural heritage features through conservation easements and the refinement of mainland parking and access facilities.

The appellants filed a motion under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act after the Township issued a notice of incomplete application for a zoning by-law amendment, requiring an Official Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Study, and servicing report.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order deeming the application complete without the requested studies, subject to the appellants providing confirmation from the Health Unit regarding a septic system permit.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit six dwelling units within an existing detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five local residents.

As the parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to identify the issues and set hearing dates.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit shoreline residential zoning in an environmental constraint area.

The Tribunal granted participant status to ten individuals on consent.

The parties indicated a strong potential for settlement and requested a one-day hearing in the fall.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing for October 25, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville for failing to make decisions on a proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal directed the municipalities to provide an outline of their concerns, set a timeline for the exchange of witness statements, and confirmed the hearing would commence on August 8, 2022.

The Township of Ramara sought approval of an amendment to its Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Levy By-law to increase levies on properties operating short-term rental accommodations.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to a short-term rental operator and scheduled a one-day hearing to determine whether the proposed levy is fair and reasonably justifiable.

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 City did not actively participate in the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeals regarding a proposed residential subdivision, arguing the appeals lacked apparent land use planning grounds and were premature due to insufficient technical information.

The respondent had appealed the moving parties' failure to make a decision on its draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's notices of appeal and supporting expert affidavits disclosed genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds worthy of adjudication.

The Tribunal also held that prematurity under section 51(24) of the Planning Act is a matter to be determined at a full hearing on the merits, not on a motion to dismiss.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Langmaid's Island Corporation and Mitchell Fasken against a community zoning by-law passed by the Township of Lake of Bays.

The parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled after the issuance of a decision in a related Phase 1 hearing (PL180898).

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered a second CMC to be convened within 90 days of the Phase 1 decision.

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 45-unit residential development.

The City took no position on the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and in keeping with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.

The County of Northumberland sought to expropriate 0.75 hectares of the owners' land to serve as a buffer and resolve issues stemming from construction of an adjacent emergency services base, where excess fill was inadvertently deposited on the owners' property.

The owners requested a hearing of necessity under the Expropriations Act, arguing the taking was unnecessary and the grading errors could be fixed without expropriation.

The Tribunal found that because the owners refused to grant access to remove the fill, the County had no other reasonable alternative to rectify the grading issues.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably defensible in achieving the County's objectives, and issued a report approving the expropriation.