OLT 2022

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that only partially approved minor variances required to add a fifth storey to a previously approved four-storey apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to parking rates, setbacks, and technical variances related to condominium boundaries.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a high-rise residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 24-storey towers and the removal of a heritage building, with community benefits provided in exchange for increased density.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and representing good planning.

The appellants appealed the Town of Collingwood's refusal to grant a retroactive heritage permit for painting the masonry of their home, located in a Heritage Conservation District.

The parties reached a settlement after expert evidence confirmed that removing the paint would cause extensive damage to the masonry.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Town to issue the permit, noting that the settlement ensures the integrity of the heritage structure.

The appellant appealed a cash-in-lieu payment of $58,552.07 required by the City under the Planning Act.

The appeal languished for over seven years with no action taken by the parties.

The Tribunal issued a notice of potential dismissal and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

At the conference, the parties requested an extension of time to locate building permit plans that could resolve the matter.

The Tribunal reluctantly granted a short extension and scheduled a peremptory Case Management Conference to hear a status update or convert to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a small-scale rural commercial shop for metal works on the applicant's property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding species at risk, minimum distance separation (MDS) from his chicken coop, and aggregate resources.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal was an on-farm diversified use consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal found the appellant's chicken coop was built strategically to thwart development rather than for bona fide agricultural purposes, and thus MDS formulae did not apply from that structure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 30-storey mixed-use building at 335 Yonge Street.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 16-storey mid-rise building with a 5-storey podium.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and represents good planning, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills and the County of Lanark brought a motion to dismiss appeals of two Official Plan Amendments without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented individual with a history of bringing unsubstantiated appeals against the municipality, argued the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal found the appeals were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant had no direct interest in the lands and did not intend to call expert planning evidence.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard appeals regarding the proposed development of an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre in the Township of Springwater.

The County of Simcoe appealed the Township's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, while Friends of Simcoe Forests Inc. and Nicholyn Farms appealed the County's Official Plan Amendment 2.

Following a settlement and finding that the facility could be accommodated without negative impacts, the Tribunal allowed the County's appeals, amending the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and allowed the other appeals in part to amend the County's Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to render a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 40-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement, which the parties indicated may be possible after a staff report is provided.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence in April 2023.

Following an interim decision that allowed appeals of consents and a minor variance in part and in principle, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its final order.

The Tribunal attached the agreed-upon draft conditions of approval for the provisional consent and the minor variance for the proposed Lot 1 at 1079 Roosevelt Road in the City of Mississauga.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Langmaid's Island Corporation and Mitchell Fasken against a community zoning by-law passed by the Township of Lake of Bays.

The parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled after the issuance of a decision in a related Phase 1 hearing (PL180898).

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered a second CMC to be convened within 90 days of the Phase 1 decision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Welland's approval of Official Plan Amendment 16, Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-61, and conditions of a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the SWM Pond and Open Space blocks, neighbourhood commercial zoning provisions, and infrastructure timing conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified instruments and conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable plans, and approved the settlement.

The applicant requested, on consent, an extension of the deadline to satisfy conditions outlined in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the deadline to July 22, 2022.

This was a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals under the Planning Act for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Mondelez Canada Inc. and Cosmetica Investments Inc., and participant status to the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and ordered that a further Case Management Conference be scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 7080 Yonge Limited against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use high-rise development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and party status to nine entities on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order, Issues List, and set a hearing date.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-unit residential development.

The City took no position on the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and in keeping with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicants appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit four six-storey mixed-use buildings.

Following a public settlement hearing and an interim decision approving the amendments in principle, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued this final order allowing the appeals and approving the final form of the official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease discharging raw sewage from its septic tanks into the leaching bed and to retain a licensed waste hauler.

Following an Interim Settlement Agreement, the appellant applied for an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an upgraded wastewater treatment system.

At a status hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal was advised that the ECA was expected to be issued within two months.

The Tribunal ordered a further status hearing to be held on August 25, 2022, to provide an update and confirm ongoing compliance with the settlement agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Belleville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a vending machine business as an accessory use on a residential property.

During the hearing, the applicant's own land use planning expert testified that the original application was flawed and did not conform with the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.