Glenn Wellings

At a Case Management Conference, the City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion to approve parts of its new Official Plan, modify a site-specific policy reflecting a settlement with Mattamy James Street Limited Partnership, and dismiss the appeal of Infinity Developments Group Inc. The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the Residential Neighbourhood Area and related policy, modifying the plan to reflect the Mattamy settlement, and dismissing Infinity's appeal under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act for failing to articulate its issues despite ample opportunity.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the expansion of a retirement home.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving design changes to increase planting buffers and protect mature trees.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, finding it consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of portions of an existing golf course into residential lots and a mid-rise or townhouse block.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it would result in the loss of open space, remove mature trees, and undermine the character of the established community.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, appropriately manages stormwater and natural hazards, and provides needed housing through intensification.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey retirement home with ground floor commercial uses.

The appellant reached a settlement with the City, the Region, and the Conservation Authority, resulting in a modified proposal.

A neighbouring party opposed the development, arguing it constituted overdevelopment and did not conform with the City's Official Plans.

The Tribunal found that the modified proposal was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, provided appropriate special needs housing, and conformed with both the 1997 and 2020 Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the 2020 Official Plan coming into force for the subject property.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the proposed development from 34 to 31 single-detached units and dedicating approximately 75% of the lands for public ownership.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conformed to the intent of the Official Plan, addressed participant concerns regarding density and traffic, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended instruments and draft plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment application to permit a four-storey seniors' residence and 16 bungalow townhouses.

The City did not oppose the appeal, and the hearing proceeded as a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and conforms to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments, finding the development represents an appropriate form of residential intensification.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision approving a consent to sever and associated minor variances to facilitate the creation of two lots for single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted the unrefuted expert land use planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and met the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed, the variances were authorized, and provisional consent was granted.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that included a 6.0 metre Maximum Front Yard Setback for a proposed seniors-oriented mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to remove the setback requirement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 17 and the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan regarding the identification of natural heritage and hydrologic features on their lands.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the policies and land use designations, supported by uncontroverted ecological and planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

A case management conference was held to consider hearing appeals related to the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 119, Zoning By-law Amendment 2020-418, and the new Official Plan together.

The Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together for case management purposes.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a motion by 409 Brant St. Ltd., finding that ZBA 2020-418 does not apply to its site, which had the statutory effect of releasing the site from the Interim Control By-law and reinstating its prior zoning.