Spencer Putnam

The appellant appealed zoning by-law amendments that limited the aggregate number of bedrooms on low-density residential lots and restricted the height of detached additional residential units to that of other accessory structures.

The appellant argued these restrictions constituted 'people zoning' and conflicted with the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the regulations were appropriate performance standards to manage intensity and built form, represented good planning, and were protected from appeal under s. 34(19.1) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard four motions to implement settlements regarding appeals of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Comprehensive Official Plan.

The motions sought modifications to land use designations, mapping, and policies related to aggregate resources, agricultural lands, and natural heritage systems.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and geotechnical evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motions and ordered the requested modifications to the Official Plan.

The Township of South Stormont sought to repeal the heritage designation of a municipally-owned property known as the Raisin River Heritage Centre, intending to demolish it.

Several community members and the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario objected to the repeal, referring the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Applying the test for repeal of designation, the Tribunal found that the property continues to retain cultural heritage value or interest, a point conceded by the Township's own expert.

Consequently, the Tribunal recommended that the designating bylaw not be repealed and advised the municipality to consider adaptive reuse rather than demolition in fulfilling its statutory duty to protect heritage properties.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their minor variance application to construct a new dwelling larger than the legal non-conforming log cabin it replaced.

The property is zoned Environmental Protection and abuts a highly sensitive lake trout fishery at capacity for development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed expansion, without an Environmental Impact Study demonstrating no adverse impacts, is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and does not meet the test under s. 45(2) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 124-unit apartment building.

The town approved the amendment, and the appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a case management conference to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order, set an issues list, and scheduled a one-day video hearing to determine the merits of the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a parking lot and storage compound for boats and recreational vehicles on an abutting property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding stormwater management, visual impacts, traffic, and environmental protection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and that specific concerns regarding buffering and drainage can be appropriately addressed at the site plan control stage.