Robert Maciver

The Municipality of Clarington brought a motion to dismiss the site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 126 (OPA 126) filed by two landowners.

The municipality argued that the appellants lacked standing under section 17(36) of the Planning Act because their properties were located within a 'Future Block Master Plan' area that was expressly deferred and excluded from OPA 126.

The Tribunal found that the appellants did not meet the statutory eligibility requirements to appeal, as the adopted amendment did not apply to their lands.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against Official Plan Amendment 126 to update the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in Clarington.

The Tribunal granted party status to Brookhill North Landowners Inc. and confirmed statutory party status for the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Susan Seger as she did not make oral or written submissions prior to the adoption of the plan, and directed that any challenges to the validity of the remaining appeals must be brought by motion.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan control for a residential subdivision.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on revised applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan Control to permit a 136-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on a party status request by an adjacent landowner seeking reimbursement for servicing costs, directing the parties to continue discussions.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and to address whether the 2014 or 2020 Provincial Policy Statement applies to the revised applications.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a special events venue and culinary-related activities as on-farm diversified uses.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that introduced additional regulations, including limits on temporary structure floor area, hours of operation, and amplified sound.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Clarington's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that rezoned the adjacent property to permit a convenience store within an existing residential dwelling.

The appellant argued the ZBA lacked necessary traffic and parking studies and would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the use of a holding provision was appropriate to ensure technical issues are addressed at the Site Plan stage, and that the ZBA was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellants appealed the Regional Municipality of Durham's modifications to the Municipality of Clarington's Official Plan Amendment No. 124, specifically concerning Policy 4.4.7 of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan.

The parties reached a settlement to revise the policy to require an overall average density of 85 units per net hectare, with no individual development having less than 60 units per net hectare.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised policy represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans by facilitating a broader range of housing types, including townhouses.

The appeals were allowed to approve the modified policy.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive status updates and organize the hearing of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law in the Municipality of Clarington.

The parties informed the Tribunal that a procedural order and issues list were being finalized and that mediation was not an option.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on November 14, 2022.

The applicant sought to rezone his property to permit commercial uses, including a convenience store, which the municipality approved.

The appellant, who operates a competing convenience store next door, appealed the decision.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, arguing the appeal was brought in bad faith to prevent market competition and lacked legitimate planning grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's uncontradicted expert planning evidence raised legitimate land use planning issues regarding site size, parking, and loading conflicts that warranted a full hearing.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude the appeal was brought solely for delay or in bad faith.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amended Environmental Compliance Approval permitting a cement manufacturing facility to increase its use of alternative low-carbon fuels from 96 to 400 tonnes per day.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable because it failed to impose stringent emissions standards, lacked comprehensive ambient air monitoring, and failed to properly consider the Ministry's Statement of Environmental Values, including the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The evidence demonstrated the Director relied on comprehensive scientific studies showing the expanded use of alternative fuels would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts and would comply with applicable provincial air standards.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct a 33-car parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

The appellant argued the parking lot was not a permitted use and would cause environmental harm, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Study and master plan were required.

The Hearing Officers found that the parking lot is a permitted use as a Bruce Trail access point and satisfies all relevant Development Criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the development permit was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct an asphalt parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

Following a telephone conference call, the Hearing Officer issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates for the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct a parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

Following a series of pre-hearing conferences, the Hearing Officer issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the parties to exchange issues lists and scheduling a further telephone conference call to confirm the issues and set dates for document exchange and the main hearing.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit that would allow the importation of 1.8 million cubic metres of fill to rehabilitate a quarry.

The appellant argued the proposal was a permitted use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, such as a mineral extraction operation or forest management.

The Hearing Officers found that the existing rehabilitation plan was substantially complete and that the proposal amounted to a commercial fill operation, which is not a permitted use.

The appeal was dismissed.