Konstantine John Stavrakos

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on their respective applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision to permit residential developments.

Prior to the hearing, both applicants reached settlements with the Town.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, based on uncontested expert planning evidence, found that the proposed developments have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the applicable growth and official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments to implement the settlements.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a mixed-use community.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions and approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final order pending confirmation of servicing allocation.

The St. Joseph Island Planning Board brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of its refusal to grant a consent application for the severance of a waterlot and shore road allowance.

The Board argued the appeal lacked valid planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success because the proposed lot lacked public road frontage and could not be serviced.

The Tribunal found that the appellant raised genuine, contested factual and planning issues regarding road access and servicing that required adjudication at a full hearing.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bronte River Limited Partnership and Eaglewood Communities Inc. against the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they were working towards a settlement and that the applications had been amended to increase the number of units.

The Tribunal directed Eaglewood to re-circulate notice of its revised proposal and scheduled hearing dates for the presentation of the proposed settlements.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframe.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in settlement discussions following the adoption of a related Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to either consider a settlement agreement or finalize a procedural order and issues list.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential building.

Prior to the merits hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 16-storey, 111-unit proposal.

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

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

This appeal concerned a property zoned agricultural, where the Estate Trustees sought a declaration for legal non-conforming use for commercial purposes, including outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment.

The application judge dismissed the declaration, finding the uses were not lawful under the relevant zoning by-law.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the application judge's refusal to award them costs for a successful contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the declaration, affirming that the commercial activities were not lawful non-conforming uses.

It also granted leave to appeal the costs issue but dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision on costs.

The appellant appealed a town-wide housekeeping amendment to the comprehensive Zoning By-Law that increased the minimum lot frontage requirement for back-to-back townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the appellant had submitted a complete development application that met the original lot frontage requirements.

The parties reached a settlement to include a footnote in the amendment exempting applications deemed complete prior to its adoption.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended by-law represents good planning and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

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.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bronte River Limited Partnership and Eaglewood Communities Inc. against the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Trafalgar Township Historical Society and party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton and Conservation Halton.

The Tribunal also ordered that the appeals be heard together in a phased hearing and scheduled future hearing dates.

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 Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course for residential units.

Following Case Management Conferences, the parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, which established the issues list, hearing dates, and procedural deadlines for the upcoming 19-day hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a mixed-use complete community.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached settlements with the City and the Niagara Escarpment Commission, resolving concerns regarding density, visual impacts on the escarpment, and the relocation of an isolated wetland.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the revised instruments were consistent with provincial policies and conformed to applicable plans, allowing the appeals and approving the instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to six entities, including the City of Burlington and the Regional Municipality of Halton, and participant status to 66 individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a forthcoming motion for consolidation.

The appellant appealed the Town of Milton's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised instruments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised development consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and confirmed the withdrawal of the official plan appeal, bringing it into effect.

At a case management conference concerning an appeal of a zoning by-law regulating cannabis operations, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's property.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the by-law for all lands within the by-law area except for the appellant's property, on a without prejudice basis.

A procedural order was issued and a six-day hearing on the merits was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city's failure to make decisions on requests to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and to approve a proposed plan of subdivision for the redevelopment of parts of a golf course.

The Tribunal directed the parties to revise the draft Issues List to be organized by issue rather than by party to avoid overlap.

A 19-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on March 5, 2024.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course.

At the second case management conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to revise the draft issues list to be organized by issue rather than by party to avoid overlap.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 19-day hearing and provided directions regarding the calling of lay witnesses and the participation of added parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order for the hearing of appeals brought by Flamborough Power Centre Inc. against the City of Hamilton.

The appeals relate to the City's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment, neglect of a zoning by-law amendment application, and failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision for the development of a complete community at 30 Dundas Street East.

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

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use (agri-tourism and retail) on the applicant's property.

The central issue was whether the property constituted a Prime Agricultural Area, which is a prerequisite for the proposed use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officers found that the property was not mapped as a Prime Agricultural Area by the Province, and a site-specific agrology study could not override provincial mapping and implementation procedures.

The Hearing Officers recommended that the development permit be refused, and the Minister subsequently refused the application.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for an 8-storey seniors' residence.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the conservation authority, and a local communications company on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled an 11-day hearing on the merits to commence in April 2023 and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.