David A. McKay

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate a 29-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle on an interim basis, withholding its final order until several conditions, including servicing and transportation reports, are satisfied.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of five minor variances for a property located at 775 Vaughan Road.

The variances sought to increase the building height from 38 to 45 storeys, increase gross floor area, and adjust setback and amenity space requirements to facilitate a purpose-built rental building with additional community benefits.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions securing affordable housing or community cultural space.

The City of Markham brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 12-day merit hearing regarding appeals for non-decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The City argued the hearing was premature pending the completion of the Yonge Corridor Secondary Plan.

The Applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause prejudicial delay and violate the Clergy Principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City had sufficient guidance to assess the applications, and that the prejudice of delay and the need for procedural fairness outweighed the City's concerns.

The applicants appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of two one-storey industrial buildings.

The parties reached a settlement that relocated a planned public road to the perimeter of the subject property and adjacent lands, allowing for greater flexibility in building sizes.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 15-storey residential building.

The parties reached a full settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including infrastructure upgrades, parkland dedication, and natural heritage conveyances.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal featuring reduced building heights and increased setbacks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable official plans, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the applications in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to approve minor variances for the construction of a detached dwelling.

Following mediation and a subsequent settlement among the parties, revised variances were submitted.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development consisting of three buildings (9, 14, and 25 storeys) at 41-75 Four Winds Drive.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and urban design evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforming to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning in the public interest.

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