Andrew Ferancik

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 17-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the final disposition, the parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed redevelopment facilitates appropriate intensification, creates new housing, and conforms with applicable planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until several pre-requisite conditions, including rental housing replacement and infrastructure matters, are satisfied.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At the outset, the Tribunal held a motion hearing and determined it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act to consider an expansion of the OPA to include adjacent lands that were not part of the original application or appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, finding that the proposed reclassification to 'Station Area Core' and the 46-storey height were appropriate given the site's proximity to a new LRT station.

The Tribunal also approved the proposed 5.5 m tower setback to the north and 6.0 m base building setback along Bayview Avenue, preferring the applicant's expert evidence over the City's.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 94-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 99-storey proposal.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the amending instruments and engineering reports.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 42-storey mixed-use building.

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

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application for a proposed 19-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for an 18-storey building with 91 residential units.

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

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part, approved the amendment in principle subject to conditions, and adjourned the site plan appeal.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a portion of its commercial plaza property by Metrolinx for a grade separation project.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property was a standalone mixed-use residential redevelopment, rejecting Metrolinx's argument that an assemblage of adjoining properties was required.

The Tribunal awarded $4,570,000 for the market value of the fee simple taking, declining to apply the 'before and after' valuation method under section 14(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal also awarded $50,000 for a temporary easement and $1,321,061 for injurious affection caused by the grade separation and loss of access.

Interest was awarded at 6% from the date Metrolinx acquired legal possession.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate an 8-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 9-storey buildings connected by a central lobby, with an urban square.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal conformed to the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final amendment documents.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 31-storey residential building.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on uncontradicted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with applicable plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications for a proposed mixed-use high-rise development within a Major Transit Station Area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal to include two 39-storey towers with 990 residential units and commercial space.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local official plans, and approved the zoning by-law amendment and site plan in principle.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 34-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 33-storey development.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised application 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, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 35-storey mixed-use building.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement for a revised 33-storey building with 450 residential units, including 53 replacement rental units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, representing appropriate transit-oriented intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the building height to 6 storeys and the number of units to 174, while maintaining a proposed childcare facility and relocating an existing heritage dwelling.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with regional and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the submission of final instruments and satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on its Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The applications sought to facilitate the development of residential townhouse blocks and mixed-use buildings on an underutilized site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with provincial policies and local plans, and approved them in principle, withholding the final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a property.

The variances sought to reduce rear yard soft landscaping and increase lot coverage to accommodate an existing patio, pool, and cabana.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of her property by the City of Toronto.

The City expropriated the land to build a new childcare centre after selling its previous childcare site to Metrolinx for the Eglinton LRT project.

The Tribunal determined that the 'scheme' to be ignored for valuation purposes was the childcare centre, not the Eglinton LRT.

Finding the highest and best use to be an 8-storey mixed-use mid-rise development, the Tribunal awarded market value compensation of $4,326,350 based on a rate of $70 per square foot buildable.

A claim for disturbance damages was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increase in density from 240 to 254 units in an approved 27-storey apartment building.

The City of Burlington supported the application.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it provided gentle intensification with no exterior changes to the building and no unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to render a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 66-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 60-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 324 regarding a public street connection.

The parties reached a settlement to convert the amendment into a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP).

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed SASP has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the Official Plan Amendment as modified by the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision for a mixed-use development on the waterfront.

Following mediation and revisions to the draft plan, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the applicant's expert, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the revised conditions of draft plan approval, and referred final approval of Phase 1 to the City.