3 total
Heritage designation by-law appeal allowed in part to implement a settlement agreement between the parties.
The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil's passing of a by-law to designate the property at 6225 Yonge Street as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The parties reached a full uncontested settlement, which was approved by Town Council.
Based on the settlement and the uncontradicted expert evidence provided by affidavit, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the designation by-law in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.
Minor variance for animal kennel on agricultural property approved on consent subject to noise and capacity conditions.
The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.
The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.
The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to the agreed conditions.
Appeals allowed in part to permit a mixed-use development following a settlement between the parties.
The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.
The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring 18-storey and 9-storey buildings with 555 residential units and a public park.
The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Halton Region Official Plan, and represents appropriate intensification within a Major Transit Station Area.
The appeals were allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending finalization of the planning instruments and technical reports.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.