Jim Levac

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development in Kleinburg.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the building heights and density, and introduced holding provisions to address heritage, servicing, and design concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments as modified.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendment (NUC OPA) and site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal adjudicated contested policies regarding food store requirements, public realm delivery, building heights, and minimum density targets.

The Tribunal also considered the site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation, determining that the developer was not required to provide a Village Square under the Master Parkland Agreement, but must accommodate a trail network.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the Tribunal approving the planning instruments in principle subject to modifications and finalization.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a heritage permit to facilitate a 52-unit townhouse development on an assembly of lands that included a designated heritage property and lands adjacent to a natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development in principle subject to conditions.

The Tribunal found that the 15-metre buffer to the valleylands must be designated and zoned as Natural Area, but permitted its use as a Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) for passive recreation.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed development conserved the cultural heritage resources of the site, represented an appropriate level of intensification, and was compatible with the character of the surrounding stable residential neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 14-unit townhouse development.

Following revisions to address technical concerns regarding the adjacent Metrolinx rail corridor, including a revised crash wall design, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents appropriate infill development and approved the site plan in principle, subject to pre-approval conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of 18 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement on the zoning appeal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and allowed the appeal in part to amend the zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use building with purpose-built rental units.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 12-storey slab building with 173 units, including affordable rental units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the municipal official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the execution of agreements securing the rental tenure and affordable units.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to render decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate a partial redevelopment of the Sheridan Centre lands with two 15-storey residential buildings.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with the applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending submission of the final instruments.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a two-storey single detached dwelling.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement involving an amended application with reduced variances for eaves height, ridge height, front yard setback, and dwelling depth.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended application met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the amended variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three buildings of 18, 25, and 16 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the development in principle and withholding its final order pending submission of the final instruments.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment No. 115 (OPA-115), which mandated that a minimum of 10% of housing units in certain residential developments be provided as below-market affordable housing.

The appellants argued that these policies were tantamount to Inclusionary Zoning and were ultra vires the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while the policies did not formally constitute Inclusionary Zoning, they were tantamount to it.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the City failed to demonstrate that the mandated affordable housing policies were 'practicable' as required by section 16(1)(a.1) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the mandatory affordable housing policies in OPA-115 were ultra vires the Act and allowed the appeals in part, striking down the offending policies.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on their applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a high-rise residential development.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced tower heights.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a residential property into two lots and associated minor variances for reduced lot width and area.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and met the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variances and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, noting the development would provide a visual transition from a neighbouring six-storey condominium.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 24-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the development to 22 detached dwellings, including 9 freehold and 13 on a common element condominium road.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with applicable official plans, representing a compatible form of gentle intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey residential apartment building with ground floor commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and Region of Peel Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 8 to 15 storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and City Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 14-unit townhouse development adjacent to the Metrolinx Rail Corridor.

The City did not oppose the development from a land use or urban design perspective, but raised concerns regarding rail safety.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence of the applicant in land use planning, urban design, and rail safety.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which includes a crash wall and a 25-metre setback from the rail corridor, adequately addresses rail safety risks, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendments were approved subject to post-approval conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a four-unit townhouse development.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and regional/local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments.