Dan Hipple

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal of consent applications to sever a property to create two new residential lots, as well as the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and By-law 64-21, which expanded the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area.

The appellant argued that the property was not within the Regulatory Floodplain and that the City's floodplain mapping was flawed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access during flood events.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances were inconsistent with provincial policies protecting public safety and environmental integrity.

The Tribunal upheld OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, finding them to be grounded in sound planning principles and supported by robust technical analysis, and dismissed the appeals.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard Phase 2 of appeals regarding the Yonge and Bernard Key Development Area (KDA) Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law in the City of Richmond Hill.

The hearing focused on site-specific development applications and policies for the eastern quadrants and the Di Pede lands in the northwest quadrant.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed modifications, which were supported by expert planning, transportation, and environmental evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Greenway System designation and natural hazard buffer requirements for the northeast quadrant, dismissing the appeals of North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), which failed to call any evidence.

All other appeals were dismissed, bringing the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law into effect for the remaining lands.