P. DeMelo

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Town of The Blue Mountains' failure to approve planning applications for a 37-unit residential farm co-operative, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a one-day motion for the County of Grey to determine if a County Official Plan amendment is required, and set a two-week merit hearing.

A Procedural Order was approved and appended to the decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to increase lot coverage from 33% to 40% for a new single-detached dwelling.

The Town Council subsequently supported the variance and did not call witnesses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, having regard to provincial interests and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

Following a settlement on the zoning appeal, the parties requested an adjournment of the merit hearing for the draft plan appeal to continue technical work.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference and a three-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Town of The Blue Mountains' failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision for a proposed 37-unit residential farm co-operative.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on a development charges complaint.

The parties requested the scheduling of a five-day merits hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the merits hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to replace a planned local road with a pedestrian mews for a proposed mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and municipal plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 560-unit residential community.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Following an uncontested settlement hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-Law Amendment based on expert planning evidence that it was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Official Plan.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved for the remaining draft Plan of Subdivision appeal, which was scheduled for a future hearing.

A first Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment, and Site Plan Application to facilitate a 97-unit residential development with commercial space in East Gwillimbury.

The Tribunal denied a party status request due to the requester's failure to serve the parties or attend the hearing.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

The parties agreed to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List by October 6, 2023.

The owners of a property requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused their application for minor variances to build a new house.

The owners alleged that the TLAB member made errors of law and violated procedural fairness by relying on a site visit, referencing past committee experience, and misapplying the test for minor variances.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original member properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal tests.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a nine-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton on consent.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to two individuals who attended the hearing and raised genuine land use planning concerns.

Two other individuals who requested participant status but failed to attend the hearing were denied status.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The requested variances included significant increases in lot coverage, gross floor area, and building length, as well as a reduced front yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the proposed dwelling constituted an over-development of the site that would not respect and reinforce the character of the neighbourhood.

The panel concluded that the variances did not maintain the general intent of the official plan and were not minor in nature.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The amendment sought to replace a planned local road with a pedestrian easement.

As the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by Fourteen Estates against the Municipality of Clarington's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 107.

The parties requested a five-day hearing to resolve the remaining site-specific issues concerning Environmental Protection designations, boundaries, and the scope of an Environmental Impact Study.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order, Issues List, and confirmation of participation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Region of Durham.

The appellant appealed the Town of Shelburne's Development Charge By-law No. 21-2020.

The parties reached a settlement that removed specific items from the development charge calculation, reducing the net capital costs by 3%.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified by-law complied with the Development Charges Act and ensured that growth pays for growth.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law schedules in accordance with the settlement.

The County of Brant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal not to schedule hearings on the merits of two sets of appeals while an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) was in effect.

The County argued that scheduling the hearings would run contrary to the intent of section 38 of the Planning Act, which provides a municipality with 'breathing space' to rethink its land use policies.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that section 38 only authorizes a municipality to prohibit the use of land, buildings, or structures, and does not suspend the processing of development applications or the adjudication of appeals.

The Tribunal concluded that scheduling the hearings offered the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceedings under section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association and the Niagara Home Builders' Association against two Region-wide Development Charge By-laws passed by the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the appeals consolidated, directed the filing of a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing for February 2024.

The appellants appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's new Development Charges By-law No. 25-22.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested Tribunal-led mediation to reach a settlement or reduce the issues list.

A request for party status by the Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. was deferred to the next CMC, pending the outcome of the mediation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file an agreed Procedural Order if a hearing on the merits remains necessary after mediation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The parties advised that City Staff will bring a report to City Council in March, and requested a second CMC be scheduled in May 2023 to either convert to a settlement hearing or schedule a hearing date.

The Tribunal scheduled the second CMC and determined no Procedural Order was required at this time.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development proposal for Phase 5 of the Lakeside Village Development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a community association on consent.

The parties requested a 12-day hearing for Phase II, which the Tribunal scheduled for August and September 2023.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.