Lauren Pinder

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit a dental office on the ground floor of a mixed-use apartment building.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed use is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to regional and local official plans, and meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

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

At a second Case Management Conference, the applicant requested to consolidate its appeals regarding site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments with its appeal of the City's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal denied the consolidation request because proper notice had not been provided to the parties in the new Official Plan appeal.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide proper notice so the consolidation request could be considered at the next scheduled Case Management Conference for the new Official Plan appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that only partially approved minor variances required to add a fifth storey to a previously approved four-storey apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to parking rates, setbacks, and technical variances related to condominium boundaries.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a residential property into three lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize floor area ratio variances for three proposed two-storey detached dwellings on irregular, smaller lots in the St. Luke's Precinct.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo for all requested variances, including setbacks and lot coverage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed developments disregarded the newly introduced floor area ratio standard intended to prevent overbuilding.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances would result in overdevelopment, lacked appropriate spatial separation, and were incompatible with the neighbourhood character.

The appeals were dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and Conservation Halton.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for March 2023.

The applicant sought a minor variance and permission to expand a legal non-conforming second-floor balcony at a residential property.

The City of Burlington initially refused the application but subsequently reached a settlement with the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to a condition requiring the maintenance of a vegetative buffer.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its July 21, 2021 decision.

The correction clarified that the City had suggested 30 days prior to witness statements exchange would be insufficient, whereas the applicant submitted that a 90-day deadline would better facilitate a settlement.

At a case management hearing for an appeal against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 59-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Bay Cloverhill Community Association Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate and submit a draft procedural order and issues list by October 25, 2021.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 17-storey residential building.

The City argued the proposal exceeded density limits in the North York Centre Secondary Plan, lacked appropriate setbacks, and required the removal of mature trees.

The Tribunal found that the secondary plan's density limits were outdated and that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies encouraging intensification near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence on urban design, transportation, and forestry, concluding the development represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the amendments subject to finalization of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 14-unit townhouse development.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several local residents.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List, striking a proposed issue that would have required the final zoning by-law to be satisfactory to the resident parties, finding it inappropriate to give third parties such control.

An 8-day hearing was scheduled.