Melinda MacRory

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington'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 consisting of two residential towers.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal to include 864 units, increased park area, and adjusted building heights.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as a heritage designation and demolition permit refusal, to permit a 33-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement that included relocating and integrating the existing heritage building into the new development.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial, regional, and municipal policies for intensification within an Urban Growth Centre.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the planning instruments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending heritage approvals.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a cottage rental use on the subject property.

The variances sought reductions in on-site amenity area, parking stalls, and parking area setbacks.

The parties reached a settlement restricting the use to a two-bedroom cottage rental and requiring an encroachment agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that only partially approved minor variances required to add a fifth storey to a previously approved four-storey apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to parking rates, setbacks, and technical variances related to condominium boundaries.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.