3 total
Tribunal approves settlement for industrial development, finding it consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.
The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval within the statutory timeframes.
The applications sought to permit the development of two large industrial buildings comprising warehouse space and ancillary offices.
Prior to the scheduled merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.
The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed settlement, which includes a Light Industrial Zone, a Natural Heritage Zone, holding provisions, and conditional Site Plan approval, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.
Appeals against townhouse development dismissed; proposal found to be appropriate infill intensification compatible with neighbourhood.
The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and provisional consent to facilitate a six-unit street townhouse development on a property adjacent to heritage resources.
The appellant argued the proposal represented overdevelopment and was incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the proposal represented an appropriate, modest form of intensification that was compatible with the area and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.
Appeal of minor variances for a six-storey mixed-use building dismissed; variances authorized.
The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment granting minor variances to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.
The variances related to density, height, setbacks, gross floor area, landscaping, parking, and loading.
The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding area, provided appropriate transition, and supported intensification and transit policies.
The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.