Kenneth Chan

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a hotel development.

The minor variance application sought to increase the height of a proposed building from 15 to 19 storeys, along with related technical variances.

An adjacent resident was granted party status and opposed the variances, citing concerns over height, scale, and shadow impacts.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the applicant that the variances were minor, represented good urban design, and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the minor variance appeal in part, authorizing the variances subject to conditions, and adjourned the site plan control appeal sine die.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as the refusal of a Heritage Permit Application, to permit an 85-storey mixed-use building at Yonge and Gerrard Streets.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the subject site is too small to accommodate the proposed tall building.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed tower setbacks and separation distances would result in unacceptable impacts on privacy, sky view, and daylighting for adjacent properties, including the existing Chelsea Hotel.

Furthermore, the proposed loading and servicing configuration, which relied on a turntable and a new driveway access, presented unresolved operational challenges and would negatively impact the public realm.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for an 18-storey mixed-use development.

A neighbourhood association brought a motion for the Panel Member to recuse himself due to alleged bias, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the planning merits, the Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a light industrial development.

The parties settled most issues, but disputed whether the Regional Municipality of Halton could require the Appellant to dedicate land at no cost for a future road extension as a condition of site plan approval under s. 41(8) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed road extension constituted a new road rather than a 'widening' under s. 41(8), and that requiring the land dedication without compensation would be unfair and akin to expropriation.

The Tribunal also found the Region lacked authority to regulate access points on the Appellant's private driveway before acquiring the land.

The appeal was allowed and the disputed conditions were deleted.

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 permit a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height and density limits of the North York Centre Secondary Plan.

Adjacent property owners also opposed, requesting a block assessment to ensure their future redevelopment potential.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development optimizes land and infrastructure, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal approved the development in principle, subject to minor architectural modifications to accommodate the adjacent property, and withheld its final order pending the finalization of the amending instruments and a Section 37 Agreement.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the development of high-density mixed-use towers and townhouse units.

The City opposed the applications, raising concerns regarding building heights, urban design, shadow impacts, and the location of proposed parkland.

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

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' expert evidence that the proposed developments promote efficient, transit-supportive land use and provide an appropriate range of housing options.

The final orders were withheld pending the finalization of the by-laws, a Section 37 agreement, and other conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 17-storey residential building.

The City argued the proposal exceeded density limits in the North York Centre Secondary Plan, lacked appropriate setbacks, and required the removal of mature trees.

The Tribunal found that the secondary plan's density limits were outdated and that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies encouraging intensification near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence on urban design, transportation, and forestry, concluding the development represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the amendments subject to finalization of conditions.