Brittany Maione

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 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The appellants appealed the municipality's by-laws designating their properties as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal heard expert heritage planning evidence from the municipality demonstrating that the properties were representative examples of early twentieth-century residential styles and maintained the historic residential character of the streetscape.

The Tribunal found that the properties met the prescribed criteria for designation and dismissed the appeals, leaving the designating by-laws in full force and effect.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances related to parking requirements and first-floor height for a proposed 28-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that addressed the City's concerns regarding reduced parking spaces by including conditions of approval, including a financial contribution to a parking reserve.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Burlington's Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances related to parking requirements for a 28-storey mixed-use building.

The scheduled merit hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference after the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached in principle.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day written hearing to consider the settlement and directed the parties to provide the necessary supporting materials.

A second case management conference was held regarding appeals against the modified approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit three residential apartment towers.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the final procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day merits hearing, noting that the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Burlington's decisions to pass heritage designation by-laws for two properties.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day merit hearing to commence by video on May 27, 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's modified approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

Due to an administrative error by the City, notice of the initial Case Management Conference was not provided, causing a delay.

On consent, the appellant requested a Status Hearing to schedule the merit hearing to avoid further prejudice.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing for June 2025 and set dates for the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Michael and Gita Sobhi against the City of Burlington's passage of a heritage designation by-law for the property at 488 Locust Street.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day video hearing to commence on March 5, 2025.

The City of Burlington passed by-laws designating two properties on Brant Street as having cultural heritage value.

The appellants separately appealed the designations.

At a Case Management Conference, the City requested that the two appeals be heard together because they relied on the same consultant report.

The appellants consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure and scheduled a two-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant railway company against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal deferred a request for party status by a neighbouring landowner, directing them to file a written motion.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot into two and reduce the minimum lot width from 18.0 metres to 15.2 metres.

The Tribunal heard unopposed expert planning evidence that the proposed lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and represent appropriate residential intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an office use on the ground floor of a downtown building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the application to specifically permit a real estate brokerage office, subject to conditions ensuring an active store frontage.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the revised minor variance was approved.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a heritage designation by-law, the municipality requested that the matter be heard together with two other appeals concerning similar properties.

The Tribunal denied the request at this time because the other appellants had not yet been consulted.

The Tribunal adjourned the conference to allow the municipality to seek consent from the other appellants and recommended the municipality amend its request for Tribunal-assisted mediation to include this appeal.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey apartment building.

Following a Case Management Conference, the parties resolved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the 9-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 4, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Burlington's Heritage By-law No. 32-2023 for the property at 488 Locust Street.

The self-represented appellants indicated an intention to bring a motion for summary judgment, but the parties agreed to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation first.

The Tribunal directed the parties to apply for mediation and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 4, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing commencing March 5, 2025, in the event mediation is unsuccessful.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey mid-rise building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all issues, including a revised parking supply.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with local plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for a proposed quarry expansion, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a 60-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal adjourned a motion by the City of Burlington to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals due to the late filing of motion materials, which the panel had not fully received.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to hear the adjourned motion and finalize the procedural order.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to facilitate a 10-unit townhouse development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a six-day merit hearing and a third Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal also noted the parties' intent to consolidate an anticipated site plan appeal with the current proceedings.

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.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 54, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town reached a proposed settlement that resolves all issues on the Issues List, and discussions with the Regional Municipality of Halton were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order with a scoped Issues List and a written update on whether a contested hearing would still be required.