Franz Kloibhofer

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development consisting of a six-storey podium with two residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey, 74-unit apartment building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, but a residents' group opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the neighbourhood and not transit-supportive.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is within a strategic growth area, conforms to local and provincial planning policies, and employs appropriate design measures to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments that permitted a residential development of single-detached and townhouse dwellings.

The appellant argued the approvals were premature because the stormwater management strategy lacked coordination with adjacent lands and was not technically feasible.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the preliminary stormwater management plans were sufficiently coordinated and that remaining technical matters could be addressed at the detailed design stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve modified Zoning By-law Amendments that included appropriate holding provisions, concluding the proposal represented good planning and was in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 16-storey residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 17-storey mixed-use building with 319 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good transit-oriented development.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a development permit issued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to the applicant for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the permit conditions, including updated stormwater management requirements.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Hearing Office found the modified permit consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Growth Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the modified permit was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the Town of Lincoln's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 453-unit residential development consisting of 20 and 23-storey towers.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development represented good land use planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Growth Plan and Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the Zoning By-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit a dental office on the ground floor of a mixed-use apartment building.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed use is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to regional and local official plans, and meets the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.