Dr. Ali Shirazi

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The appellant appealed the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located within a floodplain and riverine erosion hazard area.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding and erosion under O Reg 166/06.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it would be located within a floodway and lacked safe access for vehicles and pedestrians during a flood event.

The Tribunal also found the proposal inconsistent with the conservation authority's internal policies prohibiting new development in flood hazards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 8-storey residential condominium on a site within the Humber River Valley Corridor and the Bolton Heritage Conservation District.

The Town and TRCA brought a motion to strike portions of the Appellants' reply witness statements, which the Tribunal dismissed, noting the difference between pre-hearing disclosure and trial evidence.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the site is suitable for intensification and does not pose an unacceptable erosion hazard, the proposed development's scale, height, and massing fail to conserve the significant cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal declined to approve the proposed development but did not dismiss the appeal, allowing the Appellants to submit a revised, smaller-scale proposal.