David Falletta

The Beamsville Bench Winery Association (BBWA) brought a motion seeking Party status in appeals concerning the Town of Lincoln's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The developers opposed the motion, arguing BBWA lacked a direct interest and its participation would cause unnecessary duplication and delay.

The Tribunal granted Party status, finding that BBWA had a direct interest due to potential impacts on nearby wineries and specialty crops, had participated in the prior municipal process, and would provide necessary and distinct evidence regarding agritourism and agricultural impacts.

The Tribunal declined to strike BBWA's proposed issues, leaving their merits to be determined at the hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building within the Aldershot GO Major Transit Station Area.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit two industrial buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised planning instruments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amended planning instruments.

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

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise development consisting of 30-storey and 39-storey towers.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height of the Niagara Escarpment and conflicted with the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement's goals for intensification and land optimization in a transit-oriented area.

The Tribunal concluded that the building heights would not negatively impact views of the Niagara Escarpment and that shadow, wind, and servicing issues could be adequately addressed through the site plan process.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for increased outdoor storage and reduced parking, but imposing conditions the appellant found unacceptable.

The appellant sought to replace the conditions with a single requirement for a chain link fence with mesh screening.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to the revised screening condition.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to reduce the minimum parking ratio for a proposed mixed-use development.

The appellant also sought variances for increased building height.

The Town did not oppose the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning and transportation engineering, the Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on an application for Site Plan Approval for a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented agreed-upon Conditions of Approval to the Tribunal.

Relying on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal found the site plan and conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and satisfied the requirements of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 41(3.7) of the Planning Act to deem its site plan application complete.

The City of Guelph had refused to accept the application, arguing it was incomplete due to missing external agency clearances, lack of conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, and the retroactive effects of the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023.

The Tribunal found that the City conflated the requirements for deeming an application complete with the requirements for granting site plan approval.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had provided all prescribed materials and that the City's additional demands at the completeness stage were unreasonable.

The motion was granted, and the application was deemed complete as of its submission date.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential building.

Prior to the merits hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 16-storey, 111-unit proposal.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The City argued for a maximum height of 17 storeys and a larger tower setback based on its unapproved 2020 Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the 26-storey development.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, noting it optimizes land use in an Urban Growth Centre, provides needed housing, and is compatible with the surrounding area without causing adverse impacts.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mid-rise mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 12-storey proposal.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy, conforming to regional and local plans, and representing good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a student residence development.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed development, which includes 10 and 15-storey buildings with student residences and accessory commercial uses, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good land use planning.