Chris Pidgeon

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted number of residential units on the subject lands from 93 to 327.

The City argued the application should be evaluated under the older, more restrictive Official Plan in effect when the application was filed, relying on the Clergy Principle, and requested a Holding provision for municipal servicing.

The Tribunal found the Clergy Principle inapplicable as the City's new Official Plan and Zoning By-law supported the proposed built-form.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendment without a Holding provision, finding that servicing could be adequately addressed through the Site Plan Control process.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development consisting of single detached units, townhouses, and apartments.

The parties reached a settlement resolving most issues, deferring consideration of one medium-density block, and addressing noise classification.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the instruments in principle subject to conditions.

Sifton Properties Limited appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision and withholding the final order for the Zoning By-law Amendment pending the fulfillment of a condition related to an Official Plan designation change.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use waterfront development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal comprising nine buildings, including a hotel, townhouses, and an apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement by-law.