Adam Miller

The Applicants and the Town of Caledon brought a motion for approval of a settlement concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 4-storey residential condominium.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) opposed the settlement, arguing that the Tribunal's previous 2022 decision failed to make determinations on natural hazard and negative impact issues.

The Tribunal declined to conduct a review or reconsideration of its 2022 decision, finding no statutory basis to do so.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Town's Official Plan, and approved the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located within a floodplain and riverine erosion hazard area.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding and erosion under O Reg 166/06.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it would be located within a floodway and lacked safe access for vehicles and pedestrians during a flood event.

The Tribunal also found the proposal inconsistent with the conservation authority's internal policies prohibiting new development in flood hazards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 8-storey residential condominium on a site within the Humber River Valley Corridor and the Bolton Heritage Conservation District.

The Town and TRCA brought a motion to strike portions of the Appellants' reply witness statements, which the Tribunal dismissed, noting the difference between pre-hearing disclosure and trial evidence.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the site is suitable for intensification and does not pose an unacceptable erosion hazard, the proposed development's scale, height, and massing fail to conserve the significant cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal declined to approve the proposed development but did not dismiss the appeal, allowing the Appellants to submit a revised, smaller-scale proposal.