OLT 2022

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's Committee of Adjustment approval of a minor variance application for a proposed three-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Deer Park Residents Group on consent.

The parties agreed to adjourn a related site plan appeal until the minor variance appeals are resolved.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for the merits of the appeals.

The Applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,000 following a minor variance appeal.

The Applicant argued that the Township's conduct was unreasonable and vexatious due to differences in opinion, failed settlement efforts, and the Township planner's lack of objectivity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proceedings were normally contentious and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued its final order approving a zoning by-law amendment for a 25-storey mixed-use building at 301-317 Queen Street East in Toronto.

The Tribunal had previously allowed the appeal in part and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions, including the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

Having received confirmation that the conditions were met, the Tribunal ordered the amendment of Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding a minor variance application to permit an increased residential floor area ratio for a new single detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce the requested variance.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a storage facility on underutilized land.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal approve the revised amendment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The Appellant brought a motion for site access to conduct additional environmental studies, and the Applicant brought a motion to strike several witnesses from the Appellant's witness list.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for site access, finding it inappropriate and academic given the upcoming deadlines.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike in part, striking an economic impact witness for lack of relevance, an environmental expert for reasonable apprehension of bias, and two lay witnesses who had already been granted participant status.

The Tribunal also ordered that multiple experts in the same disciplines (land use planning and wetland assessment) be called as panels to avoid duplication of evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a two-bedroom basement secondary dwelling unit.

The requested variances sought relief for minimum lot area and side yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the intent of the Growth Plan.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming 18-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 25, 2023.

The applicant 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 32-storey mixed-use building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development optimizes land use in a major transit area and conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the execution of a section 37 agreement securing community benefits and parkland dedication.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 9-day hearing to commence in August 2023 and directed the parties to finalize the issues list and procedural order by January 2023, accommodating delays caused by the upcoming municipal election.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Burgess Heritage Group Inc. against the Town of Grimsby's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The applications seek to permit a 5-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting the hearing dates, procedural steps, and the issues list.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 123, which requires a 45-metre right-of-way along Dundas Street East.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted Party status to the Region of Durham on consent.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing, and the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 13, 2022.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, consent, and site plan applications to permit a 22-unit, 3-storey apartment building and the severance of an existing heritage house.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and in principle, finding the site ideally located for residential intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners over the Town's consulting planner, concluding the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County and Town Official Plans, subject to minor revisions to the lot line to eliminate an irregular notch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Dundeal 212 King LP, 214 King Holdings Limited, and 220 KSW LP against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applications propose an 80-storey mixed-use building with 569 purpose-built rental units at 212-220 King Street West.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting a 10-day video hearing to commence on April 24, 2023, and establishing the issues list and procedural dates.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use development.

At the fourth Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that City Council's decision was imminent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide necessary planning instruments and affidavits by August 2, 2022, and scheduled a further Telephone Conference Call for August 4, 2022, to review the materials for a written hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence supporting a settlement proposal.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the execution of a Section 37 Agreement securing community benefits and the fulfillment of various conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previous decision.

The amendment corrected the Title of Proceeding to accurately reflect the purpose of the initial application, which was to permit the creation of two non-farm residential lots.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of consent applications intended to create a legal right-of-way over the applicant's property to provide access to a public road for two existing properties.

The appellants raised concerns regarding a private agreement, land use compatibility, traffic safety, and hydro easement clearance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed consents do not require a plan of subdivision, have regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Official Plan, and are subject to reasonable conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the upcoming 14-day video hearing for appeals by the Friends of South Shore against Prince Edward County's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments would permit a 337-unit park model trailer site.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for witness statements and document exchange.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 6-storey, 113-unit residential apartment building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represented an unprecedented over-intensification of residential uses in the Downtown Area.

The Tribunal also held that the applications were premature, as they would usurp the ongoing Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan Update and undermine the public consultation process.