OLT 2021

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The amendments are sought to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry area.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for a 25-day video hearing scheduled to commence in February 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by Ashley Heritage Joint Venture and 840966 Ontario Ltd. from the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The parties requested the scheduling of further mediation dates and a 14-day hearing in 2022.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order, scheduled a further case management conference for November 2021, and set a 14-day hearing commencing in October 2022.

The parties requested on consent to amend a previous Tribunal decision regarding minor variances to substitute a new revised site plan and elevation drawings.

Because the original presiding member had resigned, the Tribunal initiated a review on its own accord under its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the original decision amended to reflect the new drawings.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances sought to retroactively validate exterior alterations made to accommodate wheelchair access.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving amended variances and conditions to remove certain paved areas to ensure proper drainage.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The appellants appealed the City of Thunder Bay's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 69, which provided a site-specific exemption to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement for the applicants' property.

The appellants raised concerns regarding flooding, alternative arrangements for a second dwelling, and an official plan bar on certain lot enlargements.

The Tribunal found that these concerns were premised on a potential future development or severance application, which was not before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment regarding lot frontage was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the amendment was approved.

A status hearing was held to advise the Tribunal on the progress of expropriation proceedings related to an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The parties agreed to a date for a Hearing of Necessity, but due to the reorganization of the Ontario Land Tribunal, no hearing dates were currently scheduled.

The Tribunal ordered a third Case Management Conference to proceed by video hearing on March 7, 2022.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to the City of Windsor to permit a municipal building gallery and washroom facilities to extend above the crown of Riverside Drive.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development failed all four tests for a minor variance under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not minor, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was denied.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbours on consent.

The parties advised they were close to a settlement and requested a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day settlement hearing and directed the parties' planners to review and consider the participants' statements in their planning reports.

The appellant appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 362 (OPA 362), which guides the revitalization of the Dufferin-Wilson Regeneration Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to OPA 362.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City Planner, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modified OPA 362.

The appellant appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's failure to make a decision on applications for rezoning and a draft plan of subdivision for a 73-unit residential development.

The dispute centered on a draft condition requiring the appellant to convey lands accommodating a stormwater management pond to the Township, which the appellant did not control.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a property owners' association and scheduled a three-day hearing to resolve the stormwater engineering and planning issues, while noting the parties were engaged in constructive discussions to settle the matter.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 7, 2020.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended paragraph 7 to clarify that Ken Vaillancourt was a witness called by the Appellant, rather than the spouse of the Appellant.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant provisional consent and minor variances to create four lots for the construction of four triplexes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and that the requested variances for reduced lot width and area were minor and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

The appellants appealed the Municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a four-unit dwelling and a detached garage into a single dwelling unit.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Chatham-Kent Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning and engineering evidence that the proposal represents an efficient use of land, contributes to a mix of housing options, and maintains the existing character of the neighbourhood without adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed the approval of a consent to sever and a minor variance for lot frontage to allow the creation of two lots for single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents sensitive intensification, conforms to the Official Plan, and meets the criteria for severance and minor variances.

The appeal was dismissed, provisional consent was granted, and the variance was authorized subject to conditions, including tree replacement.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The parties presented a refined Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order, including a contested provision regarding potential costs awards for failing to call evidence on listed issues, and scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-Law No. 2019-353, which introduced new zoning provisions for high-rise buildings.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 11, 2022, and issued a procedural order governing the proceedings, including the finalization of the issues list and the order of evidence.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make decisions regarding an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan for the property at 9124 Dixie Road.

During a telephone conference call, the Tribunal was advised that the parties had resolved the zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision appeals and that the official plan amendment was no longer required.

The only remaining issues in dispute related to engineering aspects of the common element of the site plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing to consider the settlement and hear evidence on the remaining site plan issues.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a large dwelling and accessory structures.

During a telephone conference call to finalize the issues list, the Hearing Officer determined that issues related to an adjacent quarry lake were not properly before the Tribunal.

The issues list was finalized, with the primary remaining issue being the location of the septic bed, and the hearing was reduced to a single day.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 13, 2021, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendment corrected a paragraph reference to include an additional page from the Motion Record and attached the missing schedule.