OLT 2022

The Town of Grimsby brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive financial and development documentation from the applicant, Rosebay Construction Inc., in a dispute over the valuation of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Town sought the documents to conduct a new appraisal using a Residual Land Value methodology, having previously relied on a Direct Comparison Approach.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this late stage would be prejudicial to the applicant, cause significant delay, and fail to offer a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the municipal committee of adjustment's decision to authorize minor variances for a new residential dwelling, pool house, and storage shed.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a revised design that resolved concerns regarding garage orientation, tree preservation, and a retaining wall.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to agreed-upon conditions.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal was updated on settlement discussions, a recent Minister's Zoning Order, and the resolution of issues with one of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a final hearing plan by February 9, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications sought to permit a seven-storey residential apartment building.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order on consent of the parties, who were working cooperatively towards a revised development proposal.

The appellant appealed the Town's passage of a Zoning By-law Amendment regulating Short Term Accommodations and Commercial Resort Units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying the amendment to increase the maximum number of bedrooms and permit rear yard parking for specific lots.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified amendment consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an additional CMC date to continue mediation and potentially convert it to a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a further CMC and a 9-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant completed unauthorized site alterations, including regrading and tree removal, within a Key Natural Heritage Feature on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment refused the subsequent minor variance application.

On appeal, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances, subject to conditions including a comprehensive tree restoration plan and security deposit, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a 21-storey residential rental building.

The Tribunal scheduled an 8-day hearing and directed the parties to submit an updated Procedural Order with a scoped Issues List, noting the parties' intention to seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for a special event tent.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions focused on noise mitigation measures but had not yet reached a final agreement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue their discussions, required the non-attending appellant to participate, and ordered the parties to provide a status report or notice of readiness for a further conference or hearing.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent for the hearing of appeals by 738489 Ontario Limited regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a mixed-use development.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a recreational dwelling, the applicants requested an award of costs against the appellants.

The applicants argued that the appellants failed to present expert evidence to support their environmental concerns.

The Ontario Land Tribunal denied the request, finding that the appellants' conduct in advancing the appeal without expert evidence did not meet the threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award under Rule 23.9.

The applicant requested a modification to condition 34 of the draft plan conditions for a plan of subdivision, which was previously approved by the Tribunal in 2014.

The Township of Springwater consented to the modification.

The Tribunal ordered that condition 34 be replaced with a revised condition requiring 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.

The applicant and the City of Peterborough requested an extension of the lapsing period for an approved draft plan of subdivision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, extending the lapsing period for an additional three years to February 25, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act.

At the joint request of the parties, the scheduled hearing was converted into a Case Management Conference.

The parties reported positive ongoing discussions and requested a further date to continue resolving outstanding issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video Case Management Conference for June 6, 2022.

The applicant requested a one-year extension to the lapsing date for a draft plan of subdivision.

With the consent of the Town of Milton and the Regional Municipality of Halton, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, extending the lapsing date to February 10, 2023.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

Following an interim decision that approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, the Ontario Land Tribunal was advised that the conditions for the release of the final order had been satisfied.

The Tribunal issued its final order approving the final form of the zoning by-law amendments.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to an industrial property to reduce setbacks and separation distances.

The applicant sought the variances to relocate sea containers and establish a defined parking area for heavy vehicles associated with its legal non-conforming contracting business.

The appellant argued the variances would intensify the use and exacerbate existing noise, odor, and traffic impacts.

The Tribunal found the variances would optimize the site's use, improve safety, and mitigate existing impacts, satisfying the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to a three-year temporary condition.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey, 148-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the proposal was an appropriate form of redevelopment along a major arterial road, achieved a compatible interface with abutting land uses through strategic design methods, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East.

The Tribunal noted a change in ownership to Mattamy Eglinton Limited Partnership and scheduled third and fourth Case Management Conferences, as well as a 14-day Hearing of the Merits.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new accessory structure on the applicant's property.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated they were engaged in settlement discussions regarding alternative locations for the structure.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update by April 29, 2022, to advise whether a settlement had been reached or if a hearing on the merits would be required.