3 total
Appeals allowed for high-rise mixed-use development; property's location in Future MTSA supports proposed intensification.
The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development with 2,009 units.
The central issues were whether the property's location within a Future Major Transit Station Area conferred development rights, the appropriateness of the proposed height and density, and transportation impacts.
The Tribunal found that the Provincial Planning Statement does not distinguish between planned and future MTSAs, thereby supporting the proposed intensification.
The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, concluding the proposal represents good land use planning, provides appropriate transition, and that transportation impacts are acceptable subject to holding provisions.
The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis.
Appeals for residential development dismissed due to failure to meet mandatory cold-water stream setback.
The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and the County's failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit a residential development including detached dwellings and apartment blocks.
The Tribunal found that while the proposed density was appropriate and the environmental features were generally adequately protected, the proposal failed to conform to the County Official Plan's mandatory 30-metre setback from a cold-water stream.
As no application to amend the County Official Plan was before the Tribunal, the appeals were dismissed.
Appeals against townhouse development dismissed; proposal found to be appropriate infill intensification compatible with neighbourhood.
The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and provisional consent to facilitate a six-unit street townhouse development on a property adjacent to heritage resources.
The appellant argued the proposal represented overdevelopment and was incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the proposal represented an appropriate, modest form of intensification that was compatible with the area and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.