Sara J. Premi

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed residential subdivision on a heritage property, the Tribunal considered a request by adjacent property owners to change their status from Participant to Party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding their presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues, but restricted them from raising new issues.

The Tribunal also finalized the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated November 1, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Title of Proceeding was deleted and replaced with a revised version.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision to permit townhouse and single detached dwellings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals who raised concerns about density, traffic, and neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing for the merits of the appeal and directed the parties to submit an issues list.

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.

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 Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Solmar (Niagara 2) Inc. against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's failure to make decisions on planning applications for a residential subdivision on the Rand Estate.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Niagara Parks Commission and abutting property owners on consent.

The Tribunal deferred a request to consolidate the planning appeals with newly filed heritage appeals until the latter are properly before the Tribunal.

Finally, the Tribunal denied a request by Save Our Rand Estate to hold the eight-week merit hearing in person, finding that a video hearing offers the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

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 Town and an intervenor association brought motions for costs against the owners after the owners withdrew their objections to notices of intention to designate heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The withdrawal occurred five weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to award costs in a proceeding even if the matter was withdrawn before a hearing on the merits.

However, applying the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9, the Tribunal found that the owners' conduct in withdrawing the objections and their stated reasons for doing so were not clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Save Our Rand Estate Association brought motions for costs against the Owners after the Owners withdrew their objections to Notices of Intention to Designate under the Ontario Heritage Act shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The moving parties argued the late withdrawal and the Owners' conduct throughout the proceeding were unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while it has jurisdiction to award costs even when a matter is withdrawn prior to a hearing, the Owners' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The applicant appealed a condition of approval for a draft plan of subdivision imposed by the municipality.

The parties reached a settlement involving revisions to the proposed conditions and a minor change to the draft plan.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised draft plan and conditions represented good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised draft plan subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellants appealed the refusal of minor variance applications and a condition of consent approval by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Committee of Adjustment.

The parties reached a settlement to permit the creation of one new residential lot and regularize the retained lot.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variances and dismissed the appeal of the consent condition as moot.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for the construction of a new 2.5 storey detached dwelling on a corner lot.

The variances included increased building height, increased floor area ratio, an additional half storey, and reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the variances were driven by Conservation Halton's requirement to exclude a basement due to the property's location in a flood plain.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

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 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.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 172-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Save Our Rand Estate Inc. and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, and participant status to several community groups and individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order, and an eight-week hearing was set for spring 2024.

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 Town of Pelham adopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBLA) to regulate indoor cannabis and industrial hemp cultivation, primarily to address odour concerns.

Several cannabis producers appealed.

Prior to the hearing, Phoena withdrew its appeal, and Redecan reached a settlement with the Town, which the Tribunal approved as representing good planning.

Woodstock continued its appeal, arguing it should be recognized as an existing facility and granted a site-specific exception.

The Tribunal dismissed Woodstock's appeal, noting it had never formally filed an application and must pursue approvals through the standard process established by the new OPA.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever lands owned by a railway company to facilitate a sale to the applicant for future redevelopment.

During the hearing, it was discovered that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) had not received notice, leading to an adjournment and HDI being added as a party on consent.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development.

During the hearing, the Tribunal made several procedural rulings, notably excluding the appellant's ecological expert witness from giving opinion evidence because her self-described role as an advocate demonstrated an inability to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan testimony.

The Tribunal also struck hearsay reports from a non-testifying expert and excluded late-filed documents.

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement modifying the development proposal to increase environmental protection areas and adjust the residential mix.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to permit a partially constructed shed in the front yard of a lakefront property.

The shed was sited in the front yard due to natural hazard and environmental conservation constraints near the Lake Erie shoreline.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.