Rocco Vacca

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit seven townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to facilitate the creation of one new residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the Town reached a settlement agreement.

A neighbour sought party status to argue the matter should proceed by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment, but the Tribunal denied party status, granting participant status instead, as the neighbour did not intend to call planning evidence.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the applicable official plans, and met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision and condominium, specifically a condition prohibiting rooftop patios.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that removed rooftop patios on specific units and required maximum-height fencing to address overlook concerns.

The Tribunal denied participant status to a non-resident and approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement that reduced the density, height, and altered the housing form to address public and municipal concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The Town of Fort Erie brought a motion seeking partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 (the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law No. 144-2021, bringing them into force except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Casertano and found that the planning evidence supported the secondary plan, the remaining appeals were scoped to site-specific properties, the draft order protected the remaining appeals, and partial approval was in the public interest to allow other development applications to proceed.

The motion was granted.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, finding reasonable grounds under s. 17(44.2.2) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was also granted to a former resident.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to hear the Town's motion to bring the unappealed portions of the amendments into force.

The appellant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a vacation rental unit in an existing detached dwelling.

The appellant argued that the official plan prohibited vacation rental units in the River Road Satellite District and that the proposal would result in an undue concentration of tourist accommodations.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and did not create an undue concentration of vacation rental units.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision regarding a Case Management Conference.

The amendment corrected a statutory reference from subsection 17(36) to subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a vacation rental unit in the City of Niagara Falls.

The order sets out the hearing dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the schedule for the exchange of witness statements and other evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the Town of Fort Erie's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021, which relate to the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan.

As development applications were pending that could resolve some appeals, the parties requested and the Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for January 12, 2023, directing the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to permit a residential development consisting of 85 townhouses and a 50-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal reviewed five disputed conditions of draft plan approval related to road construction, wetland infrastructure, and a transportation impact study.

Relying on the appellant's expert evidence, the Tribunal found the disputed conditions unreasonable and ordered them removed.

The appeal was allowed in part, approving the modified Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan subject to the remaining conditions.

In an appeal concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a medical centre, the applicant brought a motion for directions to exclude three affidavits filed by the appellant Medical Centre.

The Tribunal found that the issues of conformity with the regional and municipal official plans were relevant, and therefore the affidavits addressing those issues were relevant and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered that the affidavits, along with responding affidavits from the Town and the applicant, be admitted as evidence for the hearing of the merits.