3 total
Appeals allowed for high-density residential development along transit corridor despite municipal refusal.
The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan Amendment to permit a 372-unit high-density residential development.
The proposed development included a 20-storey and 6-storey building connected by a podium, along with townhouse units.
The City argued the proposal represented over-intensification and was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and regional/municipal official plans, and represented good land use planning along a major transit corridor.
Appeals of OPA and ZBA dismissed; proposed road alignment and high-rise development represent good planning.
The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that facilitated a high-rise residential development.
The appellants, who owned adjacent properties, primarily objected to the proposed alignment of a new stratified north-south public local road, arguing it would inequitably restrict their own future development potential.
The Tribunal found that the approved road alignment, which was the City's preferred option following a transportation master plan update, represented good planning and was in the public interest.
The Tribunal also noted that the approved development included a significant community benefits package that could be jeopardized by altering the road alignment.
The appeals were dismissed.
Zoning By-law Amendment for convenience store upheld; holding provision appropriate to address site plan details.
The appellant appealed the Municipality of Clarington's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that rezoned the adjacent property to permit a convenience store within an existing residential dwelling.
The appellant argued the ZBA lacked necessary traffic and parking studies and would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the use of a holding provision was appropriate to ensure technical issues are addressed at the Site Plan stage, and that the ZBA was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.