Kevin McClure

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 177-unit high-density residential development.

The threshold issue was whether the lands should be re-designated and re-zoned for residential uses given an existing oversupply of residential lands in the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the site-specific redesignation of the fully serviced, shovel-ready infill property was appropriate and an efficient use of under-utilized land, despite the oversupply.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to move forward to a full hearing.

The appellant appealed the decision of the County of Elgin Land Division Committee granting a consent application to sever a new residential lot with reduced frontage.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, that the proposed severance conforms to the applicable Official Plans and meets the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was upheld subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a site-specific rezoning for a mixed-use building containing a dental clinic and five residential units.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the building's height, style, placement, parking, and potential impacts on the flood fringe zone.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants' design concerns could be addressed at the site plan control stage.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 77-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence jointly presented by the parties, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.