Russell D. Cheeseman

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that granted minor variances for shoreline setbacks but imposed an unrequested condition limiting the height of the dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve the variances without the height condition, subject to a vegetation plan and adherence to the submitted sketch.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey, 148-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the proposal was an appropriate form of redevelopment along a major arterial road, achieved a compatible interface with abutting land uses through strategic design methods, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building and two townhouse blocks.

The municipality opposed the 9-storey building, arguing it did not conform to the 3-storey height limit in the applicable secondary plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, preferring the applicant's planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good planning by providing appropriate residential intensification on an under-utilized site along a major arterial road.

The Tribunal found the municipality's reliance on the dated secondary plan policies to be overly rigid and unreasonable.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey, 216-unit residential apartment building.

The City argued the proposal represented excessive intensification and was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding the subject property is located in an area in transition and is an appropriate location for higher-density intensification under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area, will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the planning instruments.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal over the quantum of a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Tribunal directed that the Town's motion for discovery proceed in writing and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the appeal.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would recognize a waterfront parcel and a separate main parcel as one lot for planning purposes, and permit certain accessory structures on the waterfront lot.

The Tribunal found that the two parcels were functionally separated by 1.5 km of public road and could not be considered one lot.

The Tribunal allowed a dock, stairs, and landings as principal uses on the waterfront lot to provide lake access, provided that on-site parking could be accommodated, but prohibited a boathouse and sundeck to limit the intensity of use and avoid the need for an on-site septic system.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment to permit a 2-storey agri-tourism facility.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three neighbours, scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and set a three-week hearing.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment for a 14-storey mixed-use building, the Tribunal granted a request by a local resident to convert his Party status to Participant status.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order agreed upon by the parties to govern the upcoming ten-day hearing.

The applicant brought a Motion for Directions under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act, seeking a declaration that its zoning by-law amendment application was complete and that the City's requirements for additional studies were unreasonable.

The subject property contains a natural heritage system, including a creek and flood hazard.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority required extensive studies to determine the developable area and assess natural hazards.

The Tribunal found that the City's requirements, as set out in its Official Plan, were reasonable and necessary given the site's conditions.

The motion was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a light industrial development.

The parties settled most issues, but disputed whether the Regional Municipality of Halton could require the Appellant to dedicate land at no cost for a future road extension as a condition of site plan approval under s. 41(8) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed road extension constituted a new road rather than a 'widening' under s. 41(8), and that requiring the land dedication without compensation would be unfair and akin to expropriation.

The Tribunal also found the Region lacked authority to regulate access points on the Appellant's private driveway before acquiring the land.

The appeal was allowed and the disputed conditions were deleted.

The applicants appealed the Town of Huntsville's refusal to amend a zoning by-law and its failure to make decisions on consent applications relating to island properties and mainland access points.

The applicants sought consents for rights-of-way over mainland properties to provide water access to the island properties, and zoning amendments to permit 'Waterfront Landing' uses and rezone the island properties from Conservation-Holding to Shoreline Residential Five to allow for the construction of one dwelling on each island lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and approving the zoning by-law amendments, finding that the proposals had regard for provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and were supported by uncontroverted planning and preferred ecological expert evidence.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent applications to sever the rear portions of two deep lots to create two new lots fronting onto a private laneway.

The proposed lots would require access and servicing through a municipal 0.3-metre reserve, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances would create isolated lots that do not respect the existing lotting pattern, contrary to the Official Plan's neighbourhood character policies.

Given the cumulative uncertainties regarding servicing, access, and the lack of jurisdiction to compel the lifting of the municipal reserve, the Tribunal concluded the lands were not suitable for subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a light industrial development.

The parties reached a partial settlement and requested an interim order approving an interim site plan and uncontested conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the interim site plan and uncontested conditions, and scheduled a future hearing to resolve the remaining disputed conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the development of 81 townhouse units on a site that includes a designated cultural heritage landscape.

Following an earlier interim decision that found the initial proposal too intense, the appellant submitted a revised concept plan.

The Tribunal found that the revised proposal, which only reduced the unit count by four, still represented an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed four-storey townhouses and their projecting decks would crowd the site, negatively impact the surrounding low-density neighbourhood, and pose an unnecessary risk to the mature trees that form part of the site's heritage attributes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Livable Oakville Plan's policies on compatible intensification and heritage conservation.

The appeals were dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 14-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to two adjacent corporate property owners on consent.

An individual seeking party status on behalf of neighbourhood residents was granted a 30-day extension to file further documentation.

Several individuals were granted participant status on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 10-day hearing and directed the parties to file a revised Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the quantum of a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment in the amount of $4,287,591.44.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties requested the matter proceed as a Case Management Conference to explore Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal tabled the Town's motion for discovery and the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow parties to obtain mediation instructions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a two-storey detached house.

The requested variances related to rear yard setback, gross floor area coverage, and building height.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and its neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed 9-storey mixed-use development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference where the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for January 2022.

The appellant appealed the passage of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that facilitated the redevelopment of a marina on Lake Rosseau.

The appellant argued the amendment was inconsistent with provincial policies, did not conform to the official plan, and would result in overbuilding, incompatible development, and negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would improve environmental protection through enhanced wastewater and stormwater management, maintain the character of the area, and represent good land use planning.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the municipal and applicant planners over the appellant's planner.