Darren Vella

The appellant appealed Condition 19 of a draft plan of subdivision approval, which required undefined upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the condition.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the revised condition, which limits the scope of road upgrades and aligns them with the Town's Development Charge Background Study, is reasonable, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building and 63 townhouses.

The municipality argued the proposed height and density were incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood and lacked affordable housing content.

The Tribunal found the proposed development represented an efficient use of underutilized land, provided appropriate transition to the existing neighbourhood, and conformed to the applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to finalization of site-specific exceptions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Heritage Heights Secondary Plan.

The parties reached an uncontested written settlement concerning the Special Policy Area 1 Lands, proposing site-specific modifications to allow for a high-density, mixed-use community.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeal was granted in part, and the modified Secondary Plan was approved, save for one deferred area.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit a 74-unit seasonal recreational trailer park as an accessory use to an existing marina.

The appellants raised concerns regarding land use compatibility, noise, and the protection of the Natural Heritage System, specifically arguing that the proposed vegetation protection zone was insufficient under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and approved the amendments, accepting the uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposal conforms with applicable provincial and local planning policies, adequately protects natural heritage features, and represents good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 58-unit residential subdivision in a rural settlement area.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, the zoning by-law amendment was directed, and the draft plan of subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Barrie's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use condominium development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and addressed access concerns, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the submission of the final zoning by-law amendment and confirmation of the settlement conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Barrie's adoption of By-law No. 2022-009 and its failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 46-townhouse development.

At a settlement hearing, uncontroverted expert planning evidence demonstrated that the revised proposal for 46 units (reduced from 88) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, repealed By-law No. 2022-009, and approved the requested Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 73-unit residential development.

The core dispute was whether the Township could impose conditions requiring the applicant to convey third-party-owned lands containing existing stormwater management facilities to the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

However, the Tribunal held that the Township's conditions requiring the conveyance of lands the applicant did not own were unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

Instead, the Tribunal approved alternative conditions, including a requirement for an Agency Agreement to provide the Township with access and maintenance rights over the stormwater facilities.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to the revised conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a contractor's yard for an excavation business on prime agricultural lands.

The applicants argued the use qualified as an 'on-farm diversified use' or 'home industry'.

The Tribunal found the excavation business was a full-scale industrial operation that was not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property.

The Tribunal held the applications were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Growth Plan or the County and Township Official Plans, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Township of Springwater's denial of consent and minor variance applications to create four new residential lots on a merged property in the Midhurst Settlement Area.

The proposed lots required relief for reduced lot frontage and exterior side yard setback.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the applications met the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act, conformed to local and provincial planning policies promoting intensification within settlement areas, and represented good planning.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, including entering into a Consent Agreement.