Chris White

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendment (NUC OPA) and site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal adjudicated contested policies regarding food store requirements, public realm delivery, building heights, and minimum density targets.

The Tribunal also considered the site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation, determining that the developer was not required to provide a Village Square under the Master Parkland Agreement, but must accommodate a trail network.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the Tribunal approving the planning instruments in principle subject to modifications and finalization.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a cemetery and accessory uses on lands designated as a prime agricultural area.

Neighbouring landowners appealed the municipal approvals under the Planning Act and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed cemetery is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, as there is an identified need for an Ahmadiyyan cemetery and no reasonable alternative locations exist.

The Tribunal also found that hydrogeological and traffic impacts can be appropriately managed through Site Plan Control.

The Tribunal concluded that the establishment of the cemetery is in the public interest, noting the Ahmadiyyan community's lack of a faith-based cemetery in Ontario.

The Planning Act appeals were allowed in part to implement the applicant's requested modifications to the planning instruments, and the FBCSA appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment No. 115 (OPA-115), which mandated that a minimum of 10% of housing units in certain residential developments be provided as below-market affordable housing.

The appellants argued that these policies were tantamount to Inclusionary Zoning and were ultra vires the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while the policies did not formally constitute Inclusionary Zoning, they were tantamount to it.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the City failed to demonstrate that the mandated affordable housing policies were 'practicable' as required by section 16(1)(a.1) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the mandatory affordable housing policies in OPA-115 were ultra vires the Act and allowed the appeals in part, striking down the offending policies.