OLT 2021

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of minor variances to permit a 3-bedroom basement apartment.

The requested variances were to increase the maximum floor area from 70 sq.m to 130 sq.m and to reduce the minimum parking space length in the garage from 6.0m to 5.7m.

The Tribunal found that the floor area variance failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it effectively created a duplex rather than a subordinate accessory unit.

However, the Tribunal authorized the parking space variance, finding the 30 cm reduction to be minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment granting minor variances to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The variances related to density, height, setbacks, gross floor area, landscaping, parking, and loading.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding area, provided appropriate transition, and supported intensification and transit policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The applicants appealed a consent decision regarding the severance of a property in the Township of Madoc.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve a revised consent application for a larger severed lot while withdrawing a second consent application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County of Hastings Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised consent subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 49-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal issued a decision allowing the appeal in part, withholding the final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The Tribunal, having received confirmation that the conditions were satisfied, issued the final order approving the zoning by-law amendment.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of a zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a residential and commercial subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association against the City of London's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, finalized the Issues List, and approved the Procedural Order.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on July 4, 2022, via video conferencing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming cottage.

The non-conforming status arose from having three dwellings on a single lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed enlargement was a modest intensification, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan approval to permit a 164-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the instruments in principle, with final orders withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application and the failure to act on site plan applications by the Town of Grimsby.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an Interim Control By-law affecting the subject property had been extended, and the Town was considering a secondary plan and zoning by-law amendment.

Due to the pending planning instruments, the Tribunal agreed it was premature to schedule a hearing on the merits and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 27, 2022.

The applicant appealed the refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the proposed minutes of settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severances conform to the applicable Official Plans, comply with the Zoning By-law, are consistent with the PPS 2020, conform to the Growth Plan 2020, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant applied for a Class A Category 2 Quarry license under the Aggregate Resources Act.

Due to outstanding public objections, the application was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to several objectors on consent.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on February 14, 2022.

The Tribunal convened a case management conference to address scheduling issues for a motion by the appellant to strike portions of the municipality's reply witness statements in an appeal under the Development Charges Act.

As the motion decision was required before the hearing on the merits, and scheduling constraints prevented an earlier oral hearing, the Tribunal scheduled the motion for the original hearing start date and adjourned the five-day hearing on the merits to a later date.

Following an earlier decision allowing appeals in part and authorizing provisional consents and a zoning by-law amendment, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its final order.

The Tribunal had withheld its order pending the provision of the final form of the instruments deemed suitable by the municipality.

Having received the final instruments, the Tribunal ordered the zoning by-law amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a portion of a property to construct a new semi-detached dwelling.

The subject property contained a designated heritage dwelling and a detached garage proposed for demolition.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning and heritage evidence that the proposed consent was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions requested by the City.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a conditionally approved Development Permit Application to construct a single dwelling on a vacant lot in the Niagara Escarpment.

The Appellants raised concerns about the building's size, height, and visual impact.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner, scheduled a mediation session and a two-day hearing, and issued procedural directions for the exchange of documents and visual aids.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing to address the remaining outstanding issues raised by a neighboring property owner and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The parties submitted a consent request to adjourn the scheduled hearing and issue a revised Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for 335 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal approved the request, rescheduled the hearing to March 21, 2022, and ordered the revised Procedural Order into effect.

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. for quarry dewatering.

CAMQ challenged Condition 3.5 of the permit, which regulated water taking during low-water advisories, arguing it was unreasonable and could cause significant environmental harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while CAMQ had standing to seek leave, it failed to meet the two-part test for leave to appeal under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director acted reasonably, considered relevant policies including the ecosystem approach and cumulative effects, and that there was no evidence the permit would result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development with two residential towers at 9-25 Dawes Road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the city's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 66-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim order allowing the appeal in part and withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions were satisfied and the draft amendments finalized, the Tribunal issued its final order approving the zoning by-law amendments.