Kevin Thompson

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

The Township of Puslinch brought a motion seeking an indefinite adjournment of the hearing of appeals regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a gravel pit expansion.

The Township requested the adjournment until the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry decided whether to refer a related Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) licence application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an indefinite adjournment would cause substantial prejudice to the appellants and was not reasonable for the determination of the land use planning issues, which could be adjudicated independently of the ARA licence application.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2374868 Ontario Ltd. against the Township of Puslinch's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a vacuum truck soil and aggregate transfer and processing facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, directed revisions to the Joint Issues List to remove duplicative or non-jurisdictional wording, and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for July 2024.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal granted party status to 2793031 Ontario Inc. on consent.

The parties advised that discussions were ongoing to scope the issues and potentially bring parts of the by-law into force.

The Tribunal scheduled a scoping motion and a second Case Management Conference, and directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought to permit the transfer, storage, and processing of soil and aggregate materials from vacuum trucks for rehabilitation purposes.

The Tribunal deferred three participant status requests to allow counsel time to review them.

Due to the large number of anticipated expert witnesses and an unrefined issues list, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to scope the issues before setting a 15-day merit hearing.

Capital Paving Inc. appealed the Township of Woolwich's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new sand and gravel pit.

The applicant also appealed the related Aggregate Resources Act licence application.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with local Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approved the planning instruments, and directed the issuance of the aggregate licence.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by St. Mary's Cement Inc. and Rosedale Securities Limited from the failure of the County of Wellington and Township of Puslinch to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a gravel pit expansion.

The County requested that the hearing on the merits be delayed until a related Aggregate Resources Act license application is referred to the Tribunal by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Tribunal maintained the previously scheduled hearing dates but agreed that the Procedural Order and Issues List cannot be finalized until the license referral occurs, scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Township of Puslinch and the County of Wellington for failing to make decisions on zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties, reviewed the draft issues list, and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing for March 2024, along with a further Case Management Conference for July 2023 to consider the potential consolidation of a related Aggregate Resources Act license application.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's passing of a by-law designating portions of its property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in positive settlement discussions and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal agreed it was premature to schedule a hearing and scheduled a second CMC for June 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. and provisional party status to Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues Lists, and an eight-week merit hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the Region's failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 36-unit residential development.

A self-represented party raised concerns regarding rail shunting noise and the proposed Class 4 noise designation, but provided no expert evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and noise evidence that the proposal is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the zoning amendment and draft plan subject to conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List regarding appeals for a proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and an Aggregate Resources Act licence for a new sand and gravel pit.

The Tribunal finalized the procedural matters on consent and scheduled a 20-day hearing to commence in July 2023.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new sand and gravel pit.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant and party status to several individuals and groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and the Region's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business owner on consent and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2022.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new seasonal cottage on a vacant waterfront lot.

The requested variances sought relief for reduced front and rear yard setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was optimally situated on the narrow lot, retained an adequate shoreline vegetative buffer, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to site plan approval.

The applicant appealed the refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the proposed minutes of settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severances conform to the applicable Official Plans, comply with the Zoning By-law, are consistent with the PPS 2020, conform to the Growth Plan 2020, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an expansion to an existing cottage, a new boathouse, and a new dock on an undersized island property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, subject to site plan approval.

The applicant appealed the Town of New Tecumseth's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit five freehold townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the development to four units and relocating a driveway.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

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