Matthew Cory

The applicant appealed the non-decision of its Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit a residential development of 269 dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a full settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, the Zoning By-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

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

The City opposed the development, raising concerns about shadow impacts on adjacent parklands, park grading, the lack of affordable housing, and the adequacy of the unit mix.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the shadow impacts were minimal, the park grading was acceptable, and there was no statutory or policy requirement to mandate affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal also found the proposed unit mix to be adequate and transit-supportive.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with revised plans.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised applications were consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the failure of the Township of Springwater and the County of Simcoe to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The parties reached a full settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontradicted affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to determine whether its proposed redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision is located within a 'Settlement Area' under the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.

The City argued that the lands were not delineated as a Settlement Area in its Official Plan and therefore did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'Settlement Area' should be read disjunctively, and that the subject property qualifies as a Rural Settlement because it is a built-up area where development is concentrated, has a mix of land uses, and is identified in the Official Plan.

The motion was granted, and the issue was removed from the Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 57-lot residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Uxbridge and the Regional Municipality of Durham to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 541-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement endorsing the approval of the applications.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the planning instruments.

The appellant appealed the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located within a floodplain and riverine erosion hazard area.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding and erosion under O Reg 166/06.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it would be located within a floodway and lacked safe access for vehicles and pedestrians during a flood event.

The Tribunal also found the proposal inconsistent with the conservation authority's internal policies prohibiting new development in flood hazards.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for 58 detached residential dwellings.

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

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development in the Hamlet of Claremont.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act.

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

The Tribunal heard an appeal regarding the 'Prime Agricultural' designation of a 42.95-hectare parcel of land in the City of Kawartha Lakes' Official Plan.

The appellants argued that the lands should be designated 'Rural' based on an Agricultural Land Evaluation which found the lands consisted mostly of Class 4 soils with drainage and topography constraints.

The City argued the designation was appropriate and any changes should occur during a Municipal Comprehensive Review.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' evidence, finding no clear justification for the original 'Prime Agricultural' designation, and ordered the lands be re-designated as 'Rural'.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 41.1% for a two-storey dwelling on a lot within a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was generally consistent with the existing neighbourhood and maintained the required yard setbacks.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.