Anil Seegobin

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to facilitate a five-storey mixed-use building.

The requested variances included reductions in setbacks, parking, and loading spaces, and increases in floor area ratio.

The City did not call any witnesses.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

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.