OLT 2021

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for lot area and frontage to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the basement of his home.

Neighbours opposed the application citing traffic and parking concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policy encouraging affordable housing, and that traffic and parking concerns were not directly correlated to the variances.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to remove manure, improve wastewater management, and restore the site.

The appellants did not dispute the required actions but sought an extension of the compliance dates.

Following settlement discussions, the parties agreed to extend the compliance dates for manure removal and site restoration to December 10, 2021.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the revised dates appropriate and in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The appellant appealed a municipal council decision regarding a complaint about an alleged overpayment of development charges.

The appellant argued that a 2016 subdivision agreement constituted an agreement under section 27(1) of the Development Charges Act, allowing it to prepay all development charges at the 2016 rates.

The Tribunal found that no such agreement existed and that the municipality correctly calculated the charges in two stages—hard services at the time of the subdivision agreement and soft services upon the issuance of change of use permits—in accordance with its by-law.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the upper-tier municipality failed to properly certify its charges under section 29 of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed in part, with the final quantum of charges held in abeyance pending agreement between the parties.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 4-storey multi-unit residential building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal for 30 dwelling units in a stacked townhouse building conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle and withholding the final order pending the finalization of the instruments and a Section 37 Agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a six-storey self-storage building and a restaurant on an arterial mainstreet.

The City argued the site was a gateway and the use was inappropriate as it lacked residential development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development introduces an innovative mix of uses, improves the public realm, and represents an efficient intensification of an underutilized site.

The applicant and the City of Mississauga requested an amendment to the Tribunal's previous order issued on August 10, 2021, to correct an error in a zoning standard.

The original order mistakenly required a minimum setback of 2.5m for below grade parking structures instead of the intended 0.9m.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the replacement of Attachment 'B' to reflect the correct setback.

The City of Kingston brought a motion to dismiss appeals by the appellant regarding an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments pertaining to additional residential units (ARUs).

The City argued the appeals were barred by sections 17(24.1) and 34(19.1) of the Planning Act, which prohibit appeals of policies and by-laws authorizing ARUs.

The appellant argued the amendments imposed requirements that effectively prohibited ARUs, rendering them ultra vires and raising a triable issue.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, dismissing most of the appeals as barred by statute because they related to reasonable requirements or standards.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the height restriction on detached accessory buildings to proceed to a hearing, finding it raised a potentially triable issue of prohibition.

The appellant sought costs against the Town of Kingsville, alleging the Town acted unreasonably and in bad faith by delaying a decision on a site plan despite staff support.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith.

The Tribunal noted that municipal councils have the discretion to not follow staff recommendations, and that costs are rarely awarded against a public authority.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacks jurisdiction to award costs for conduct occurring outside its proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2160288 Ontario Inc. against the City of Peterborough's refusal to grant an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a revised draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled for January 2022.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their respective zoning by-law amendment applications to permit office building developments on neighbouring properties.

The parties reached a settlement for a combined 13-storey office building that conserves two listed heritage buildings on the site.

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

The appeals were allowed in part and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision due to the municipality's failure to make a decision.

The parties requested a second CMC to review technical reports and finalize the issues list.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and a 10-day Phase 2 hearing.

The applicants appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to increase the structural envelope on their property to retain an accessory shed and detached garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a revised variance to increase the structural envelope to 0.34 hectares and relocate the garage to the edge of the envelope, subject to mitigation conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 38-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included reductions in podium height, tower floor plate size, and the provision of affordable housing units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendment approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of specified conditions.

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

Following case management conferences and a hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments constituted good planning and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan Conditions on consent.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County of Oxford's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment that would permit the creation of two new residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The property owners sought the severance despite the land being designated as prime agricultural land.

The Tribunal found that the OPA was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which strictly prohibits residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas except for a residence surplus to a farming operation due to farm consolidation.

The appeal was allowed and the OPA was not approved.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an infill residential development.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached between the applicant, the City, and the TRCA, but issues remained with an added party.

The Tribunal established a timetable for the circulation of settlement materials and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. from the City of Pickering's refusal to adopt amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for lands at 591 Liverpool Road.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order on consent of all parties and scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence on November 7, 2022.

The new owner of a subject property brought a motion to be substituted as the appellant in appeals originally filed by a now-bankrupt developer regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The municipality and conservation authority brought a joint motion to dismiss the appeals due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the original appellant did not have a valid appeal of the new Official Plan because it failed to make the required statutory submissions.

The Tribunal denied the substitution motion, finding that allowing the new owner to carry on the delayed appeals under an outdated planning policy framework would cause prejudice to the parties and the public interest that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of delay.

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to permit the construction of a detached garage.

The variance allowed the accessory structure to have a lot coverage of 99.6% of the main building, whereas the by-law permitted a maximum of 50%.

The appellants raised concerns regarding neighbourhood character, potential business use, and impacts on mature trees.

The Tribunal found that the proposed garage, given the large lot size and small main dwelling, was an appropriate development that respected the heritage character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit four residential apartment buildings with commercial uses at grade.

Following a previous decision granting approval and withholding the final order, the parties provided the agreed-upon final form of the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the approval of the final zoning by-law.