Chris Pereira

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

The Town did not attend the hearing but consented to the approval subject to conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the regional official plan, and represents appropriate transit-supportive intensification.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of 38- and 43-storey towers with 962 rental units and reduced parking.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented an overdevelopment with insufficient parking and inappropriate massing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development is transit-supportive, aligns with the objectives of the Key Development Area, and is consistent with provincial, regional, and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the final forms of the amendments and related site plan are finalized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development with 524 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes relocating a heritage building, providing a midblock connection, and dedicating parkland, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amending instruments and the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement.

The owner appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for consent to sever a residential lot into two lots and for minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling on each lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the consent met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

The Tribunal preferred the expert planning evidence of the applicant over the concerns raised by neighbouring participants, concluding that the proposed development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use residential building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning, urban design, and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Township Committee of Adjustment's refusal of six applications for consent to sever rural residential lots.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement proposing to dismiss three appeals and approve the remaining three to facilitate lot consolidation and boundary adjustments.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, including rezoning the resultant lands to an Environmental Protection zone.

The appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a hot mix asphalt plant on a portion of their property.

The Tribunal found that the proposed split land use designation, designating the eastern portion as General Industrial, conformed to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined that the asphalt plant is a permitted use within the General Industrial designation.

Opposing parties argued the plant would cause adverse odour effects on a nearby food packaging facility and negatively impact the area's economic development.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the food facility was not a sensitive land use, the odour modelling was based on unrealistic maximum operating scenarios, and the plant's design met urban design policies.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved on an interim basis pending an Environmental Compliance Approval and site plan application.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 21-storey building, which was endorsed by City Council.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the site plan is finalized.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a proposed townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town and a neighbouring property owner.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which included increased setbacks and heritage-sensitive design elements, was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.