Lincoln Lo

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of its applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density mixed-use development at 4875 Dundas Street West.

Following private mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 42-storey proposal containing 445 residential units, including 56 rental replacement units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft amendments in principle subject to the satisfaction of outstanding conditions.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the construction of an inground swimming pool in the rear yard, requiring a reduction in the rear yard setback.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and submitted a revised application that shifted the pool to avoid tree removal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The appellants appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment regarding a proposed development.

The developer and a residents' association jointly advocated for a 28-storey apartment building, while the municipality supported a 25-storey building.

The Tribunal found that both proposals were policy-supported, but preferred the 28-storey proposal as it better optimized existing infrastructure and transit investments in the Protected Major Transit Station Area.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments for the 28-storey proposal were approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to reduce the minimum front and rear yard soft landscaping requirements for a residential property.

The applicant had previously installed hardscaping and a subterranean stormwater management system.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the stormwater system effectively managed run-off, fulfilling the intent of the soft landscaping by-law, and that the hardscaping was compatible with the evolving neighbourhood character.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Brampton that permitted a 42-storey and 37-storey mixed-use development on an abutting property.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the amendment to increase building setbacks and provide greater regulatory controls over massing and design to protect the appellant's property for future redevelopment.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment represented good planning, allowed the appeal in part, and approved the revised Zoning By-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a high-density mixed-use development consisting of six residential towers, an elementary school, and commercial space.

A neighbouring resident raised concerns regarding shadowing and loss of privacy.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the development's design mitigates shadow and privacy impacts, and that the proposal is consistent with provincial and regional planning policies for intensification along a transit corridor.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle.

The appellant appealed the City'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 and presented revised applications to the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the finalization of the amendments to the City's satisfaction.

The applicant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law that limited development to 6 storeys and 31 metres in height.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 9-storey mid-rise apartment building within the same 31-metre height limit, subject to a section 37 agreement for the additional height.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised by-law amendment conforms to provincial and municipal policies, represents appropriate intensification near a transit corridor, and constitutes good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.