Robert Di Lallo

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying certain minor variances required to facilitate the severance of a lot and the construction of a new dwelling and carriage house in a Heritage Conservation District.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building elevations and driveway configurations.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to facilitate the development of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the municipality's planning evidence that the proposed lot sizes and densities would result in overdevelopment, lack functional amenity space, and fail to complement the existing neighbourhood fabric.

The Tribunal found the proposal did not conform with the low-density policies of the Garden City Official Plan.

The City of St. Catharines appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent and minor variances that would facilitate a lot boundary adjustment to construct a new detached dwelling and septic system on lands designated for agricultural use.

The applicants argued the adjustment was minor and for technical reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed boundary adjustment was not minor, took significantly more land than necessary for the technical requirement of a new septic system, and failed to protect agricultural resources in conformity with the applicable official plans and the Greenbelt Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Thorold's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a three-storey, 34-unit apartment building on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the proposed residential use, increased density, and built form were appropriate and compatible with the existing neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planner, concluding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and local Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-laws.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment to permit the expansion of a Place of Worship in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

The Tribunal granted Party Status to the applicant but denied a Party Status request from a local resident who sought to act as a negotiator rather than raise planning concerns.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to consolidate these appeals with a related Zoning By-law Amendment appeal, scheduling a combined Case Management Conference to address procedural matters.

The applicant, having been successful in its appeal regarding a minor variance application, brought a motion for costs against the City and a self-represented party.

The applicant argued that the City was responsible for the Committee of Adjustment's delay, advanced a weak case, and caused delays through late filings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct by either responding party.

The Niagara Home Builders' Association appealed the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019, challenging the inclusion of four road projects (portions of Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane, and related intersection improvements).

The appellant argued these were 'local services' and thus ineligible for development charges funding.

The Tribunal found that the City's Local Service Policy takes precedence in determining DC eligibility.

Based on their function, Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane were classified as Arterial Roads serving a broader community function, not just the specific subdivision.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the road projects and intersection improvements were properly included as DC eligible growth-related services.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 applicants appealed the City of Thorold's refusal of a minor variance application to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.1 metres for a retained parcel following a consent to sever.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance recognized an existing dwelling location and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding it represented good land use planning and was consistent with provincial and local policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by the applicant against the respondent municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The amendment seeks to permit a three-storey, 34-unit apartment building.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to a three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on January 16, 2023.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments that would facilitate a medical clinic and professional office development on a property in Virgil.

The appellant, who operates a nearby medical centre, argued the amendments were inconsistent with provincial policies, would remove needed residential lands, and would negatively impact existing commercial areas.

The Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the Region's Official Plan, and conformed with the Town's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's market impact study, finding a need for the proposed medical uses and no evidence that the development would cause blight or significant adverse market impacts.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of the City of Thorold's Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application to facilitate a 6-storey, 40-unit apartment building.

The City argued that a rezoning application was required and that a heritage impact assessment had to be completed before the variances could be considered.

The Tribunal rejected the City's arguments, finding that the property was already appropriately zoned for apartment dwellings and that the heritage impact assessment could be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.

Relying on the planning evidence of the applicant's planner and the former City staff planner, the Tribunal found that the four requested variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications to sever a property and create an additional residential lot.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and participant status to the Queenston Residents Association.

A procedural order was approved and a three-day hearing was scheduled.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the City of Thorold's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, finding that their concerns aligned with the City's and they did not intend to call expert evidence.

A three-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit commercial cooking equipment within an existing Estate Winery.

The Tribunal granted party status to abutting neighbours but denied it to others who did not raise legitimate land use planning issues.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of an appeal against the City of Thorold's Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The settlement proposed rezoning the subject lands from Environmental Protection Two to R1A.

Based on expert land use planning evidence that the boundary refinement was minor and supported by an Environmental Impact Study, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and in principle, subject to the submission of a revised draft Zoning By-law Amendment including a holding provision and conditions of approval.

Niagara HP Properties Inc. brought a motion to dismiss Matt Snieder's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that permitted a 24-unit residential development in the City of Welland.

The appellant argued the development did not blend with surrounding homes and that provincial policy only encouraged growth on grey and brown lands.

The Tribunal found the appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds, was based on factually incorrect assumptions about provincial policy, and was frivolous and made for the purpose of delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

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

The applications sought to permit a 53-lot residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of 49 residential lots and an enlarged park block.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the revised draft plan and zoning by-law amendment.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Tribunal addressed procedural matters including a request for an updated market study.

The Tribunal declined to order the Applicant to prepare a new market study, instead allowing the Appellant to file evidence on changes in market conditions since 2018.

The Tribunal also confirmed directions for filing evidence on changes to the Provincial Policy Statement and scheduled a one-day video hearing for final oral submissions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three single detached dwellings on a private roadway.

The applicant called two expert planning witnesses, including the Town's Manager of Planning under summons, who both provided uncontested evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found the proposed infill development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and local official plans, as it promotes efficient use of land and existing infrastructure.

The appeal was allowed and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.