OLT 2022

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of Zoning By-law No. 62-21, which restricted the expansion of its existing cannabis production and processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve an amended version of the by-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended by-law, which establishes site-specific setbacks and excludes outdoor growth or storage, is consistent with provincial policies and constitutes good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to enact the amended by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 607-2015.

The parties requested additional time to pursue potential settlements and finalize a draft Procedural Order and issues list.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 10, 2022, to consider the draft Procedural Order and receive status updates on settlement discussions.

The Tribunal previously withheld its final order on appeals concerning a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a parking lot, pending the execution of a site plan agreement.

Having been notified that the agreement was executed, the Tribunal issued its final order allowing the appeals, amending the zoning by-law, and approving the site plan.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions and the impact of a new parking by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for the University of Toronto appeal and a further Case Management Conference to address the status of the draft By-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that included revisions to the building's massing, stepbacks, and unit mix, as well as a Section 37 contribution for affordable housing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 31.

Based on minutes of settlement and uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications resolving the appeals of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Elizabeth Robertson, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The remaining appeal by JDCL regarding mineral resource extraction and agricultural system mapping was scoped to be site-specific and adjourned sine die to allow for further discussions.

The applicant requested a revision to a draft plan condition for a proposed plan of subdivision.

The original condition required an Environmental Compliance Approval prior to any site alteration.

The revised condition requires the owner to satisfy the Approval Authority that required approvals for municipal water and sanitary systems are or will be available prior to site servicing.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that draft plan approval shall apply to the revised condition.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and provisional consent to facilitate a six-unit street townhouse development on a property adjacent to heritage resources.

The appellant argued the proposal represented overdevelopment and was incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the proposal represented an appropriate, modest form of intensification that was compatible with the area and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of several pre-requisite conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a 35-storey building, which includes parkland dedication and community benefits.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies and representing good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle and withheld its final order pending the execution of necessary agreements and fulfillment of conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to decide on a site plan application for a proposed 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies and maintaining the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed conditions in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval relating to odour emissions from its animal by-product processing plant.

The parties reached a settlement to replace a mandatory odour performance limit with an odour objective, requiring comprehensive updates to the Odour Management Plan and continuous improvement measures.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed amendments satisfy the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and are in the public interest.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a minor variance approval without a hearing, arguing the appellant lacked standing.

The appellant, who lived over 14 kilometres away, claimed standing based on his special knowledge as a land use planner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the variance would have impacts outside the local area, directly impact him, or affect matters of public interest.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant was not an 'interested person' under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 7-storey mixed-use residential building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to an adjacent landowner and Participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a potential consolidation request regarding an anticipated Ontario Heritage Act appeal and to finalize the Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a site-specific rezoning for a mixed-use building containing a dental clinic and five residential units.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the building's height, style, placement, parking, and potential impacts on the flood fringe zone.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants' design concerns could be addressed at the site plan control stage.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control to permit a mixed-use development at 4050 Yonge Street.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the development proposal in principle.

The Tribunal withheld its final orders pending the execution of a Section 37 Agreement securing community benefits and the satisfaction of various pre-approval conditions for the site plan.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision, specifically contesting the County's requirements for additional hydrogeological studies to protect the municipal water supply located in the Norwood Esker.

The applicant argued that sufficient work had already been done and that the County's demands were unnecessary and inequitable.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the County's hydrogeological experts, finding that a precautionary approach was warranted given the high vulnerability of the village's water source.

The Tribunal concluded that the County's revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies on source water protection, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots and associated minor variances.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning, ecology, and civil engineering supporting the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed consent and minor variances met all requisite legislative tests under the Planning Act, conformed to applicable provincial and municipal plans, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances.

The appellant brought a motion in writing to scope its appeal of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2021-055 to apply only to the properties at 11, 33, and 34 Perdue Court in the Town of Caledon.

The Tribunal ordered that, pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, the unappealed portions of the zoning by-law amendment are deemed to have come into force on June 22, 2021.