Sharmini Mahadevan

The appellant appealed the approval authority's decision to grant two consents to sever the applicant's property to create two new residential building lots.

The appellant argued that the existing right-of-way was not intended for vehicular traffic and that the new lots would overburden the access route.

The Tribunal preferred the expert land use planning evidence of the applicant, finding that the proposed consents were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, provided appropriate access, and would not create safety issues.

The appeals were dismissed and the provisional consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use redevelopment in the Golden Mile area.

The parties reached a settlement proposing four mixed-use and residential buildings, a new public park, and privately owned public spaces.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a mixed-use development in the Golden Mile area.

The parties reached a settlement proposing four mixed-use and residential buildings, a new public park, and a new public street, with an incentive for exclusive rental housing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Official Plan Amendment.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision regarding a proposed draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the agreed-upon draft Plan of Subdivision and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed instruments had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the municipal Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the draft Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 19.

At the Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they are actively engaged in settlement discussions and that City Council has supported a proposed settlement with conditions.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The parties advised that they had engaged in successful settlement discussions and requested a settlement hearing.

Counsel for neighbouring property owners indicated they would not seek party status as their concerns were resolved.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for July 21, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by D.D. Acquisitions Partnership concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Official Plan Amendment.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to a 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on July 4, 2022.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The parties requested an additional CMC to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, as possible revisions to the proposal were being considered.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a fourth CMC, directing the parties to provide the draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to three entities in the zoning and subdivision appeals, consolidated the official plan and zoning appeals, and scheduled a further hearing event to consider an anticipated settlement between the applicant and the City.

The parties requested a Case Management Conference to have the appeals regarding the Town of Penetanguishene's new Official Plan and the refusal of a draft plan of subdivision heard together.

The applicant is also preparing a revised application to amend the zoning by-law, anticipating a private appeal to be heard concurrently.

The Tribunal granted the request to hear the current appeals together, scheduled a follow-up Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order, and set dates for a 10-day hearing on the merits.

The applicants sought to sever their waterfront property to create two new residential lots, which would be accessed via an existing right-of-way over the appellant's adjacent property.

The appellant appealed the Planning Board's decision granting the consents, arguing the right-of-way was restricted to pedestrian use and could not be used for vehicular access to the new lots.

The Tribunal found that while it lacked jurisdiction to determine the legal rights over the right-of-way, the unresolved access dispute meant the proposed lots lacked certain access.

Relying on the applicants' own land use planning expert, who conceded it is premature to create lots without access, the Tribunal concluded the consents were premature under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the removal of a holding symbol and site plan approval for a property in the Town of New Tecumseth.

The parties indicated they were in the final stages of reaching a settlement, which involves an agreement for a temporary force main connection to an adjacent property owned by Alliston Developments Limited.

The Tribunal granted party status to Alliston Developments Limited and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to serve as a settlement hearing.

The applicants sought minor variances for height and lot coverage to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling with a cabana and pool.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the application, and a neighbour appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed dwelling was compatible with the established residential neighbourhood and that the variances were minor in nature.

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