Nima Chooback

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the self-represented appellant following the dismissal of her appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to recognize an existing eight-unit multiple-family dwelling that had been in place for over 50 years.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was void of any legitimate land use planning grounds and had no probability of success, rendering it frivolous.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $5,000 in costs to the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals by Snowy Owl Woods Holdings Inc. (Mistral Development Inc.) against the Municipality of Port Hope for its failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications propose a development of 43 single detached dwellings and a block for a 10 to 21-unit apartment building.

The Order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality of Port Hope's refusal to approve a draft plan of subdivision and implementing zoning by-law.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals on consent, scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 30, 2023, and set a ten-day hearing commencing June 3, 2024.

The appellant, GFL Environmental Inc., appealed the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a major expansion of a waste recycling facility.

During the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the appellant withdrew a related Motion for Direction.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and indicated their intent to request Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 7-day video hearing for February 2024 and directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator regarding mediation and a potential second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to increase the maximum height of an accessory building (a detached garage) from 5 metres to 6.5 metres.

The appellant presented no planning evidence, arguing primarily that he had previously been denied a similar variance.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and would have no adverse impacts due to vegetative screening.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit shoreline residential zoning and adjust environmental constraint boundaries on a property containing wetlands.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

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

At a second Case Management Conference concerning an appeal of a consent application, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to follow previous directions to amend the application after discovering that the subject parcels had merged.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to serve and file an amended application reflecting the accurate property features and relief sought by a new deadline, failing which sanctions may be considered.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved for the upcoming hearing.