OLT 2024

The City of Thorold brought a motion to resolve part of an appeal against its Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 60-2019.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed amendments to the residential zones and zoning definitions were consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the amendments, and adjourned the remainder of the appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications for a 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

A six-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on November 19, 2024, to hear the merits of the Zoning By-Law Amendment appeal.

The appellant brought a motion to determine whether its proposed redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision is located within a 'Settlement Area' under the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.

The City argued that the lands were not delineated as a Settlement Area in its Official Plan and therefore did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'Settlement Area' should be read disjunctively, and that the subject property qualifies as a Rural Settlement because it is a built-up area where development is concentrated, has a mix of land uses, and is identified in the Official Plan.

The motion was granted, and the issue was removed from the Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a stacked townhouse development.

The parties advised that they have made progress in scoping the issues and are working towards a possible resolution.

The Tribunal maintained the scheduled hearing dates for either a hearing on the merits or a settlement presentation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Cambridge's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed high-rise development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 20-day merit hearing to commence in September 2025 and a pre-hearing status telephone conference call for June 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the rescheduled hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a development of 43 single detached dwellings and an apartment building.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on September 11, 2024, for a duration of three days.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an abandoned excavator from a flood plain and sought a stay of the order.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the renter of the equipment had retained a contractor to extract the excavator and that a consent stay might be agreed upon.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider the consent stay or determine next steps if an agreement could not be reached.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of two residential lots from one existing lot.

The central issue was whether the proposed reduced lot width and area were compatible with the character of the mature neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, finding that the appropriate neighbourhood study area was broader than just the immediate street and included a mix of lot sizes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would coexist harmoniously without unacceptable adverse impacts, satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and met the four-part test for minor variances under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 16-storey residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 17-storey mixed-use building with 319 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good transit-oriented development.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a yacht club and four individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List by June 14, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on September 25, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the Town of Perth and the County of Lanark for their failure to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two interested parties on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and narrow the issues, and the parties were directed to file a draft Procedural Order.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision, the Tribunal granted party status to FP Mayfield West (Caledon) Inc. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that the parties may proceed with a settlement of the Official Plan Amendment appeal by way of a written hearing or motion, with the date to be set administratively upon consent of all parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by Markham Suites Hotel Limited against the City of Markham's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a high-density residential mixed-use development.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the Issues List for the upcoming 10-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Westchester Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for 33 Walsh Avenue.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority on consent.

A request for party status by a local resident was denied, with the Tribunal noting his concerns were covered by the City's issues list and he would remain a participant.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day merit hearing for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision issued on May 28, 2024.

The amendment updated the video hearing information, including the GoTo Meeting link and access codes.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications propose a 122-unit residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on October 28, 2024, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Woodstock Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances that would permit parking an oversized travel trailer in the exterior side yard of his residential property.

The City's expert planner testified that the variances did not meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were not desirable, not minor, and contrary to the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence and dismissed the appeal.

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 redevelop a former golf course.

Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations, a status hearing was held to reschedule the merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a new seven-day video hearing and directed the parties to file a revised procedural order and issues list following the issuance of a pending motion decision.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a consent application to sever a parcel into four residential lots.

The City did not participate in the appeal, but a City planner testified under summons that the application was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted planning evidence, allowed the appeal, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant's request for costs against the City was denied, as the Committee's decision alone did not constitute unreasonable conduct.