Brad Stephens

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a multi-storey residential development on lands located within the Humber River Valley.

In this Phase 1 hearing, the sole issue was whether the subject lands are developable given their natural heritage and hazard constraints, including significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, and flood hazards.

The Tribunal found that while the lands contain these significant features, they are developable in principle, as the Provincial Policy Statement permits development if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The appeals were ordered to advance to a Phase 2 hearing to evaluate the specific proposed development.

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.