OLT 2022

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and the Committee of Adjustment's failure to make a decision on a consent application to create a new rural residential lot.

The proposal required a reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) from an existing livestock barn.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and County Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and amending the zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal to amend its Zoning By-law to permit two floating docks and a boat lift constructed without a building permit.

The structures exceeded the maximum permitted cumulative dock width and encroached on the required side yard setback.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments did not conform to the Township's Official Plan policies protecting waterfront character and natural shorelines.

The appeal was dismissed and the requested zoning amendments were refused.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the expansion of an existing three-level deck and staircase structure at the rear of a six-unit apartment building.

The appellants argued the proposed structure would be incompatible with the neighbourhood and cause significant overlook and noise impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the existing structure enjoyed legal non-complying status and the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found the proposal was compatible with the neighbourhood and that potential impacts would be appropriately mitigated by the required opaque privacy screening.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 27-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 23-storey building.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amended subject to conditions, including a Section 37 community benefits contribution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and the Region's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business owner on consent and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2022.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced Minimum Distance Separation from an adjacent farming operation.

The adjacent farm owners brought a motion seeking party status and a short adjournment of the hearing to allow their counsel to attend.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent and granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the farm owners in proceeding unrepresented outweighed the prejudice of a short delay to the applicant.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a 13.4-metre tall accessory structure on an agricultural property.

The proposed structure, intended for storing collectibles and observation, significantly exceeded the 6.5-metre height limit for residential accessory buildings.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal met the general intent of the Official Plan, it failed the remaining three tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variance was not minor, did not maintain the intent of the zoning by-law, and was not desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit residential redevelopment of a former industrial brownfield site.

The parties reached a settlement and jointly tendered uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the revised proposal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represent good planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against a conservation authority's refusal to grant permission for the construction of a new dwelling and holding tank.

The parties agreed to a timeline for the exchange of documents, including an updated Environmental Impact Study report.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing for May 30, 2022.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a 21-storey residential building.

Following a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent.

The appellants appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced lot frontage of 10.6 metres (where 15 metres is required) to facilitate the severance of the property into two lots for new detached dwellings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, accepting expert planning evidence that the proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The Applicant and the Town sought costs against the Appellant following the dismissal of his appeal regarding a site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, noting his lack of direct interest, failure to present evidence, late scoping of issues without notice, and history of unsubstantiated appeals.

The Tribunal awarded costs against the Appellant fixed at $10,000, apportioned between the Applicant and the Town, to deter meritless appeals while not discouraging legitimate public participation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for the re-construction of Olde Baseline Road, the Regional Municipality of Peel requested and was granted Party status on consent.

The Hearing Office directed the parties to refine the issues list and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 67-unit single-detached residential development on a former golf course.

Following a previous Tribunal decision allowing the appeals, the parties agreed to a revised draft plan that eliminated a cul-de-sac, improved road connectivity, and provided additional parkland.

The Tribunal found the revised plan and zoning by-law amendment conformed to the approved Official Plan Amendment, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law passed by the Township of North Kawartha.

The parties previously reached a settlement that was approved by the predecessor Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which required the Township to amend certain zoning schedules.

The appellants brought the matter back before the Ontario Land Tribunal, expressing concern that the Township had failed to act expeditiously in completing the required mapping of wetlands and waters.

The Tribunal directed the Township to follow a proposed Work Program approved by its Council to implement the settlement as expeditiously as possible.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area for a proposed triplex.

The subject property, located near transit stations, required a variance for lot area due to its shallow depth, though it met all other zoning performance standards.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and a supportive municipal staff report, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies encouraging residential intensification.

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

At a Case Management Conference, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry brought a motion under s. 17(39)(b) of the Planning Act to bring into force and effect undisputed land use designations in its Comprehensive Official Plan across five townships.

The motion followed extensive discussions resolving appeals regarding the designation of lands as Agricultural Resource Lands versus Rural District.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised mapping was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the undisputed schedules into force.

The Tribunal also granted a motion for directions clarifying that an appellant's appeal sought an aggregate reserve designation rather than an agricultural one.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and minor variances for a property in Hamilton.

The proposal involved severing a parcel to add to an abutting vacant lot to create a new lot for a single detached dwelling, with a mutual driveway.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the video hearing scheduled for May 2, 2022, regarding appeals by 2472498 Ontario Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval in the Township of King.

The order sets out the procedural dates, parties, participants, and the final consolidated issues list.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's approval of site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments permitting a 13-storey residential building.

Following successful Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building setbacks and balcony locations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the revised Zoning By-law Amendment based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification.