OLT 2023

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal against the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought to permit the development of two high-density residential blocks.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on May 23, 2023.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of 46 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal had regard for matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a minor variance application.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions and promised to provide an update.

After failing to do so in a timely manner, the Tribunal directed the parties to inform it by May 15, 2023, regarding the scheduling of either a hearing or a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the respondent's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and participant status to three local residents.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for March 2024, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the demolition and construction of an accessory facility and removal of vegetation.

The appellant raised concerns regarding tree removal, scenery protection, noise, and potential human habitation.

The Hearing Officer accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was a permitted use, human habitation was prohibited by condition, and the vegetation removal complied with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of an 8-unit multiple dwelling with reduced parking, reduced rear yard setback, and increased lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, is transit-supportive, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The City of Toronto proposed to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owner's property to reconstruct a failing retaining wall.

The owner requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act, questioning the size of the permanent easement.

The Tribunal found that the taking of a one-metre permanent easement and a larger temporary construction easement was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, as supported by the technical evidence.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the severance of an existing lot to create a new residential lot.

The appellant raised concerns regarding lot coverage, setbacks, privacy, and shadowing.

The Tribunal preferred the expert land use planning evidence provided by the Town and the applicant, which demonstrated that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increased maximum dwelling depth for a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on their Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a 14-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference where the parties requested a second conference to allow for further discussions and the preparation of a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit the draft order and issues list beforehand.

The Township of Tiny enacted a new comprehensive zoning by-law which was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the by-law consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal ordered the approval of the by-law, save and except for specific sections and schedules that remain under appeal by various parties.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant and municipalities on the respective files.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the appeals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to refine the issues list.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against Grey County's Official Plan Amendment 11, the Town of Hanover requested party status.

The appellant, Magwood Family Farms, opposed the request, arguing the Town's involvement would be duplicative and unnecessary.

The Tribunal directed that the request for party status be determined via a formal motion at a later date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by LIV Developments Ltd. against the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 234-unit residential development.

The applicant requested consolidation of an existing Site Plan appeal with the current appeals.

The City opposed, suggesting the Site Plan appeal could be dismissed under s. 19.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found no grounds for dismissal and granted the consolidation to avoid a multiplicity of hearings.

A procedural order was directed and an eight-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding seven appeals filed against Official Plan Amendment No. 54 to the Town of Milton Official Plan, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan.

The parties requested additional time to finalize the Issues List and explore potential settlements.

The Tribunal ordered the submission of an updated draft Procedural Order and finalized Issues List, scheduled a second Case Management Conference for September 26, 2023, and set a 10-week hearing on the merits commencing May 6, 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted Party status to a neighbouring developer, limited to issues of servicing and infrastructure, and granted Participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date, finding it premature without a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set deadlines for the parties to confer and submit draft procedural documents.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant, the City, and the Region on the respective files.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and directed the parties to refine their issues list before scheduling a hearing on the merits.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an existing park model trailer as a primary residential dwelling and to legalize an existing shed on their waterfront property.

The City had issued a zoning by-law infraction notice, classifying the structure as a park model trailer, which is not a permitted use in the Residential Estate Type 1 zone.

The Tribunal found that the structure was indeed a park model trailer and not a single detached dwelling.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's new comprehensive Zoning By-law under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence provided by the municipality's Director of Planning and Development, the Tribunal found that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved to rezone the subject lands to permit a mineral aggregate operation.

The appellant appealed the County of Norfolk's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the referral of an Aggregate Resources Act licence application for a proposed sand and gravel pit.

The appellant raised concerns regarding noise, dust, and truck traffic impacts on his adjacent residential property.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the applications met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, and that the proposed mitigation measures, including an enhanced berm and tree screening, would adequately address the appellant's concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upheld the Zoning By-law Amendment, and directed the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to issue the aggregate licence.