Sara J. Premi

The appellant appealed the City of St. Catharines Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse a minor variance for increased density, while granting variances for lot area, front yard setback, and landscape buffer, to facilitate a six-storey mixed-use building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting all four variances.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the official plan.

The appeal was allowed and all variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 114-unit stacked townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to applicable growth plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by DICO Developments Inc. against the County of Haldimand's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a residential apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held 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.

One appellant withdrew their appeal, and another reached a settlement with the Town.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing for the resolved appeal and a further Case Management Conference for the remaining appellants, who are seeking to amend their development applications.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in the City of Niagara Falls.

The Tribunal granted participant status to six individuals and entities and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal also determined that a third-party zoning by-law appeal was not dismissed by the transition provisions of Bill 185, as the merit hearing had been scheduled prior to the legislative cutoff date.

Motion dates were scheduled to address the production of documents and resolve the Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and an official plan amendment, a motion for document production was adjourned.

The parties agreed to a pathway forward wherein the moving party would revise its document request and the responding parties would provide lists of relevant documents.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize issues lists and restructure the order of the merit hearings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference concerning an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a seasonal residential development consisting of 173 cottages.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and confirmed a 13-day hearing commencing in November 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a stacked townhouse development.

The parties advised that they have made progress in scoping the issues and are working towards a possible resolution.

The Tribunal maintained the scheduled hearing dates for either a hearing on the merits or a settlement presentation.

The appellant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Port Colborne to facilitate a residential subdivision, arguing that the existing wastewater infrastructure lacked capacity and that a holding zone provision should have been applied.

The developer brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found that the adequacy of wastewater servicing had been appropriately considered and addressed through conditions of draft plan approval, which fall under the Region's jurisdiction.

Concluding that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in the appearances list of its May 6, 2024 decision.

The amendment added the applicant and its counsel to the list of parties and representatives.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals by Cytec Canada Inc. and 2610832 Ontario Inc. regarding the City of Niagara Falls' By-law 2023-078 and Official Plan Amendment 147, which relate to the conversion of employment lands.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together sequentially in a three-phase hearing and scheduled dates for potential motions and the merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal recognized the invalidity of premature appeals regarding a local Official Plan Amendment, which were dismissed.

The Applicant was granted party status, and directions were provided for a non-appellant to seek party status.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, and deadlines were set for the exchange of issues lists and witness information.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and approve a zoning by-law amendment to permit a stacked townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed on procedural matters and requested the scheduling of a second CMC and a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 8, 2024, and a five-day merit hearing commencing August 26, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the municipality's designation of its property under the Ontario Heritage Act, arguing the property had not been properly evaluated and the heritage attributes were not adequately described.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by the appellant's expert.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, ordering that the property be designated in accordance with an amended by-law that accurately reflects the property's cultural heritage value and attributes as identified in the expert report.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to permit the creation of seven residential dwellings (four single detached and three townhouses).

The matter proceeded as a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed, the Zoning By-law was amended, and the Draft Plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Region of Niagara's decision to approve, with modifications, the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Amendment No. 147 (OPA 147), which addresses the conversion of Employment Lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered and granted several requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to coincide with a related zoning by-law appeal.

The applicant appealed a minor variance application under section 45(12) of the Planning Act to permit a dog kennel on the subject property.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal issued a decision approving the revised variance.

The Tribunal subsequently issued this amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in the original decision, clarifying that the animal kennel is permitted within 1.40 metres from any lot line.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of 69 stacked townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, and the City supported the applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies, representing good land use planning and appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to the agreed conditions.