Dave Hannam

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a condominium development of single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the number of dwellings from 26 to 25 and modifying site regulations to address municipal and neighbour concerns.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal, amending the zoning by-law accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the overall lot coverage from 35% to 40% for future dwellings in an approved subdivision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed increase is compatible with the surrounding area, makes efficient use of land and services, and does not increase fire risk.

The Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a maximum height of 13 metres for two proposed four-storey apartment buildings on the former Sarnia General Hospital lands.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the site's previous use included buildings up to six storeys.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development on vacant lands designated for employment.

Following case management conferences, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised instruments that maintained the employment designation while adding site-specific permissions for stand-alone residential uses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments.

The applicant and the City of London brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment without a hearing.

The self-represented appellant had filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to provide the mandatory reasons and explanations required by the Planning Act to demonstrate how the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal was deficient, raised no apparent land use planning grounds, and had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly given the uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the development.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the municipality to facilitate the development of apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of one 3-storey apartment building with 41 units, requiring an amendment to permit front yard parking.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.