Krista Libman

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to establish separate ownership for two existing office buildings and to establish easements for access, parking, and stormwater management.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the applications, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee declined to impose a City-requested condition requiring a Development Agreement for a noise warning on title, finding it unnecessary as no new noise-sensitive uses were being introduced.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment and to establish easements for vehicular and pedestrian access and servicing over a private right of way.

The City of Ottawa requested a condition requiring a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement, which the applicant asked to be amended or deleted due to an existing agreement.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest, subject to conditions including the registration of a Joint Use, Maintenance and Common Elements Agreement.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the required amenity area for a high-rise student housing development.

The variance became necessary after the appellant converted rooming units to dwelling units by adding kitchens and bathrooms, which increased the amenity space requirement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, adopting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the reduction maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature given the proximity to downtown amenities and the University of Ottawa.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to convert an existing three-unit dwelling into a four-unit low-rise apartment.

The variances related to rear yard setback, rear yard area, interior side yard setbacks, front façade recess, and garbage container pathway.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Kenora's passage of official plan and zoning by-law amendments intended to convert the western half of Central Park into residential development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the City's Official Plan, as they failed to adequately protect necessary parkland and open space.

Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the proposed sensitive residential land use would be compatible with a nearby railyard facility, and inappropriately attempted to defer necessary noise and compatibility studies to the site plan approval stage.

The appeals were allowed and the by-law was repealed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Kenora to enable the redevelopment of a baseball diamond.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Kenora that would permit a 35-unit fractional ownership resort development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on a revised zoning amendment that addressed the appellant's concerns regarding setbacks, height, and massing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the City's planner, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the revised by-law.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in its previous decision.

The amendment corrected the name of the counsel representing the applicant and added the List of Conditions requested by the respondent as an attachment to the decision.