3 total
Appeals allowed in part to approve a settlement for a residential subdivision development.
The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.
The parties reached a settlement to permit the development of a residential subdivision comprising 404 residential lots and blocks.
Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.
Appeals allowed and settlement approved for a 196-unit residential subdivision in Ottawa.
The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 196-unit residential development.
The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.
Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and constituted good planning.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, amended the Zoning By-law, and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.
Tribunal amends subdivision conditions to require compensation for transitway land dedication exceeding 5% of site area.
The appellant appealed two conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision that required the dedication of a 40-metre wide transitway right-of-way at no cost to the City.
The required dedication represented 19.1% of the total area of the plan of subdivision.
The Tribunal found that while the transitway was necessary for the City's orderly growth, requiring the dedication of the entire right-of-way at no cost was not reasonable, relevant, necessary, or equitable for this specific development.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the conditions to require the appellant to dedicate 5% of the land area at no cost, with the City to compensate the appellant at fair market value for the remaining land required.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.