Adam Layton

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a nine-storey apartment building with 252 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 12-storey purpose-built rental apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

The Tribunal denied a late party status request from adjacent landowners due to lack of specificity and failure to respond.

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

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate a 30-unit single-detached residential development.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, York Region Official Plan, and Town of Aurora Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of two fourplex buildings on a severed lot.

The applicant requested variances primarily related to gross floor area, building height, side wall height, and first floor height above grade.

The Tribunal found that while recent Official Plan amendments permit multiplexes, they still require development to respect the prevailing built form of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested height variances would result in a built form incompatible with the surrounding area, failing the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for accessory structures and a reduced front yard setback, but imposed a condition requiring the gratuitous conveyance of land for a road widening.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, relying on established case law, the Tribunal held that the road widening condition was inappropriate because it lacked a reasonable relationship to the requested variances.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized without the road widening condition.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit two purpose-built rental apartment buildings.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council and supported by adjacent landowners.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of the instruments and necessary easements.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated zoning by-law amendment intended to regulate cannabis cultivation and production facilities in the Township of Clearview.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment to the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the submission of a final site plan application and the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a multi-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three towers with 940 residential units, including 20 affordable housing units, and parkland conveyances.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of prerequisite conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Site Plan Approvals for two adjacent properties on Wilson Avenue.

The applications sought to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building and an 11-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement that included a shared driveway, improved transitions to the adjacent neighbourhood, and a coordinated naturalization plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposals represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policies.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 7-storey, 67-unit apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed transit-supported development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending finalization of the by-laws and a Section 37 agreement.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the required parking spaces from 93 to 51 to accommodate a new X-Ray laboratory in the basement of an existing medical building.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert evidence in land use planning and traffic engineering that the existing parking supply, combined with Transportation Demand Management measures, would be sufficient.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, allowed the appeal, and authorized the variance.