Melanie Hare

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development with 2,009 units.

The central issues were whether the property's location within a Future Major Transit Station Area conferred development rights, the appropriateness of the proposed height and density, and transportation impacts.

The Tribunal found that the Provincial Planning Statement does not distinguish between planned and future MTSAs, thereby supporting the proposed intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, concluding the proposal represents good land use planning, provides appropriate transition, and that transportation impacts are acceptable subject to holding provisions.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application to permit a 4-tower high-rise residential development on a portion of a former golf course, with the remainder dedicated as public open space.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposed the development, arguing it was located in a hazardous area (erosion hazard) and would negatively impact the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal found that the development site, located on a stable paleo terrace, was safe from natural hazards and that the proposed mitigation and restoration measures would result in no net negative impact on the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA in principle, while adjourning the Site Plan Application to allow the parties to resolve outstanding technical issues.

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 additional height and density for a high-rise, mixed-use development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal considered an uncontested written settlement reached by the parties.

Relying on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including the execution of an agreement securing additional affordable rental housing units.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to amend the Zoning By-law and failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement regarding the Official Plan Amendment.

Relying on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to applicable plans.

The Tribunal allowed the Official Plan Amendment appeal in part and approved the amendment, while the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal remains adjourned sine die.

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

The parties reached a settlement proposing three tower elements on two podiums with up to 1,250 residential units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.