OLT 2021

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of party status by several individuals and the abandonment of a motion for property access.

Participant status was granted to two individuals, and a further Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 19, 2021.

The Town of Amherstburg issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 109 Park Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners objected, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The sole issue was whether the property had contextual value under s. 3(i) of O. Reg 9/06 by defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Town's expert, finding that the property is part of a relatively intact 19th-century residential streetscape and archetypal to that character.

The Tribunal recommended that the property be designated, subject to revising the designating by-law to reflect only its contextual value.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan approval application.

At a case management conference, the parties reported optimism regarding settlement discussions and requested more time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to receive an update on settlement and to consider a draft procedural order.

The City of Brampton brought a motion on consent seeking modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 (OPA No. 105) regarding the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area.

The City sought to modify the boundaries of the natural heritage system in the Rainbow Creek corridor to align with the Rainbow Creek Master Environmental Servicing Plan Addendum, and to approve OPA No. 105 for specific lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and having regard to matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal granted the motion and scheduled a Case Management Conference for remaining appeals.

The applicants appealed the refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and a consent application by Prince Edward County to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applications sought to permit the severance and rezoning of rural residential lands.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting out the issues, order of evidence, and deadlines for the upcoming video hearing.

The appellant sought a minor variance to permit a 3.0-metre balcony projection for a townhouse unit, double the 1.5-metre maximum permitted by the zoning by-law.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the enlarged balcony would create unacceptable adverse visual, noise, privacy, and overlook impacts on the abutting single-detached properties.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Heritage Conservation District designation, the Tribunal considered requests for party status and appellant substitution.

The Tribunal granted appellant status to the current owner of 619 Yonge Street, substituting them for the previous owner.

The Tribunal also granted party status to the owners of two abutting properties, allowing them to shelter under the 619 Yonge Street appeal, as the properties comprise a single site proposed for redevelopment.

This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a nine-storey institutional building.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement involving reduced height, revised massing, and heritage considerations.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the municipality's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, and adjourned the related Site Plan appeal sine die.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to facilitate an accessory dwelling unit in the basement of an existing house.

The requested variances were for reduced lot area and lot frontage.

The City did not attend the hearing, and the appeal was unopposed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land by providing affordable housing options, and were minor in nature.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and participant status to five individuals, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits.

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.

The appellants appealed the Township of Norwich's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) for a new hog barn and recognized an existing mobile home as an accessory dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting expert planning evidence that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conformed to the Official Plan, and appropriately supported agricultural uses in a prime agricultural area without adversely impacting natural heritage features or neighbouring properties.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Development Charges By-law No. 2014-54 under section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The Town of Caledon advised the Ontario Land Tribunal that the by-law had been repealed by By-law 2019-31.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the appeal against By-law No. 2014-54 be dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by City Park (Lakeshore) Inc. against the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to the Lakeview Ratepayers' Association and an individual.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference, set a hearing date, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Township of Minden Hills Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for an adjacent waterfront property.

The applicant sought variances to permit increased lot coverage, reduced setbacks, and an expansion of an existing dwelling to construct a carport and an addition.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a determination of the value of their lands under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act to calculate the correct cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The applicants had paid $13,520,539.95 under protest and sought a refund based on a lower land valuation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' appraisers and economists, finding that a 12.5% downward adjustment for the COVID-19 pandemic and a 7.5% adjustment for view/shadow encumbrances were reasonable.

The Tribunal determined the market value of the lands to be $111,660,000 and ordered the City to refund $4,698,173.95 for the parkland payment, plus $9,686.08 for overcharged appraisal fees.

A case management conference was held to consider hearing appeals related to the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 119, Zoning By-law Amendment 2020-418, and the new Official Plan together.

The Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together for case management purposes.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a motion by 409 Brant St. Ltd., finding that ZBA 2020-418 does not apply to its site, which had the statutory effect of releasing the site from the Interim Control By-law and reinstating its prior zoning.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 29-storey residential infill development.

Following a 2019 decision allowing the appeal in part, the Tribunal withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The City confirmed the conditions were satisfied, with the exception of a stormwater management report modification to be addressed during site plan approval.

The Tribunal issued the final order amending the zoning by-laws.

The appellants brought a motion for costs against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake following a successful appeal regarding a site plan application and the removal of a holding provision for an estate winery.

The appellants argued that the Town's conduct in processing the application and during the appeal was unreasonable and vexatious.

The Tribunal found that while the Town could have dealt with the matter more expeditiously, its actions did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was dismissed, as was the Town's request for costs of the motion.