David Sajecki

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development at 3019 Dufferin Street.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring a 33-storey building with 345 residential units.

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

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the by-law and engineering reports.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to create two residential lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed undersized lots did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's expert planner, concluding that the proposal failed to meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit two mixed-use residential buildings.

Following a settlement and an earlier interim order, the City confirmed that all pre-requisite matters were satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order allowing the appeals in part and amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of stacked townhouses on a former school site.

The City argued the proposal did not conform to the Official Plan's requirement to respect and reinforce the existing neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the site, as a former institutional use, qualified for infill development exceptions under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed density, built-form, and height were contextually appropriate and supported by technical studies.

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

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, representing good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the Tribunal approved the requested amendments.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 35-storey residential building.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the redevelopment in principle.

The final order was withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amendments, engineering matters, and a tenant relocation and assistance plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development at 181-191 Eglinton Avenue East.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of 52-storey and 20-storey towers.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal 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 appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision to permit two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the subdivision appeal was withdrawn.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of specified conditions, including wind safety mitigation and a parking agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 10-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement through Tribunal-led mediation.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed development represents good planning, provides appropriate intensification, and conforms with provincial and municipal policies.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit three mixed-use high-rise buildings.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable growth plans and official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis pending finalization of the instruments.