Jane McFarlane

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 40-storey residential building.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed amendments conform to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the amendments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including servicing, transportation, and tenant relocation requirements.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to facilitate the redevelopment of rental apartments at 1601 and 1603 Bathurst Street.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised instruments to the Tribunal.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, withholding its final order until various conditions, including engineering reports and rental housing replacement agreements, are satisfied.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying three minor variances required to construct a seasonal pool enclosure in the rear yard of a residential property.

A neighbour opposed the application, citing concerns about lot coverage, loss of light, and views.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the temporary structure would not create undue adverse impacts and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were approved subject to a condition requiring the planting of a continuous hedge for privacy.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to facilitate a three-storey rear extension to an existing dwelling.

The requested relief included variances for building length, Floor Space Index (FSI), canopy encroachment, eaves projection, and front yard parking.

The appellant argued the proposed FSI represented overdevelopment out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the owners' planner, finding the proposed built form would be compatible with the evolving neighbourhood, particularly given a similar recent approval on the adjacent property.

The appeal was allowed only to approve the modified variances subject to a condition tying development to the revised plans.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed 10-storey mixed-use building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which included height reductions and increased setbacks, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions including the finalization of the amending instruments.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.