Michael Bissett

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed two-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing 29- and 39-storey towers connected by a shared podium, including residential units, retail space, and an on-site parkland dedication.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as heritage alteration and demolition permits, to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building incorporating a designated heritage building at its base.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development optimizes land use within a Protected Major Transit Station Area and respects the existing and planned context of the area.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence that the tower's massing and setbacks appropriately conserve the cultural heritage value of the site while providing needed housing.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a midrise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal for two buildings of 14 and 17 storeys.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan control to permit a mixed-use development with two residential towers.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held an uncontested written hearing.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the official plan and zoning by-law appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until several pre-requisite conditions, including finalization of the instruments and securing affordable housing, are met.

The site plan appeal was adjourned sine die.

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 a 60-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 36-storey residential building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The appellants appealed the Township of King's Urban and Rural Zoning By-laws.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal approved site-specific modifications to the Urban ZBL for the Via-Ru Lands, changing the zoning from 'Future Use' to 'Residential Future'.

The Tribunal also scoped and adjourned the Bushland appeal and dismissed the Ontario appeal, as requested by the parties.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 25-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with provincial policies and compatible with the surrounding context.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including servicing, transportation, and heritage matters.

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

The parties reached a settlement involving reduced tower heights and other modifications.

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

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development comprising two residential towers and an office building.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced tower heights, increased parkland dedication, and specific separation distances.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several technical conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto'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 mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of five buildings ranging from 6 to 49 storeys, a new public park, and new public streets.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until various conditions are met.

The appellant brought a motion seeking the Tribunal's approval of a settlement agreement with the Township of King regarding site-specific modifications to the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-053.

The modifications change the zoning of the subject property from 'Future Use' to 'Hamlet Residential – Future' to provide clarity for future residential lot creation, consistent with the Official Plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represent good land use planning, are consistent with provincial policies, and are in the public interest.

The motion was granted and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building, which modified a previously approved 23-storey design.

The City did not oppose the appeal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and constituted good planning.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' failure to approve a site plan application for a six-storey, 158-unit rental apartment building.

The City and area residents raised concerns regarding urban design, building orientation, shadowing, and privacy impacts on adjacent low-density residential properties.

The Tribunal found that the proposed site plan complied with the existing zoning by-law, provided appropriate setbacks and landscaping to mitigate impacts, and conformed to the applicable official plans and provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed and the site plan was approved in principle.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, specifically the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, along with related site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to the Secondary Plan's parking and holding symbol policies, finding they support transit-oriented development and conform with provincial and regional policies.

The Tribunal also approved the site-specific zoning and subdivision appeals in principle, subject to conditions, to facilitate high-density, mixed-use developments along the Steeles Avenue corridor.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with three buildings, including a 46-storey tower.

The City opposed the 46-storey height, arguing it should be reduced to 24 storeys due to shadow impacts and lack of conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, including the 46-storey tower, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and fit harmoniously within the existing and planned context.

The Tribunal held that the shadow impacts were adequately limited and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application for an eight-storey mixed-use rental residential building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the instruments in principle subject to the fulfillment of several conditions, including the withdrawal of a related site-specific appeal against a city-wide zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 12-storey mid-rise building, which included the replacement of 68 existing rental units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the final form of the by-law and related rental housing agreements are secured.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 12 and 14 storey residential building connected by a seven-storey central element.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several prerequisite conditions.

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 a 10-storey residential condominium and 10 townhouses.

The core issue was whether redesignating a portion of the site from 'Neighbourhoods' to 'Mixed Use Areas' was appropriate.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, provides appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood, and conforms to provincial and municipal policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the development in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 12-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.