Benjamin Hoff

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, are consistent with provincial policies, and represent good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 80-storey mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 250-metre high development that conserves existing heritage buildings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, contingent on the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions, and dismissed the Official Plan Amendment appeal as it was no longer required.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision regarding a proposed draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the agreed-upon draft Plan of Subdivision and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed instruments had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the municipal Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the draft Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

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

The parties reached a settlement that includes new public streets, parks, and a mix of residential and non-residential uses.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed settlement is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amending instruments.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 27-storey building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final order pending the satisfaction of servicing and Section 37 agreement conditions.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 54-storey non-residential building containing office, retail, and data centre uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the municipality's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions, including the securing of Section 37 community benefits.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.