Nick Pileggi

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an expanded A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce a landscape buffer.

The City argued the restaurant's size and operational independence made it a principal use requiring zoning amendments.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the restaurant remained subordinate in scale and function to the gas bar.

The Tribunal held the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting the necessary variances without conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce landscape buffers.

The City argued the restaurant was a principal use due to its size and operational independence.

The Tribunal found the restaurant remained an accessory use, noting it occupied only 25% of the kiosk area and did not dominate the primary gas bar function.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning without the need for conditions.

The appellant appealed the conditions of approval for a draft plan of condominium proposing 20 resort commercial units, specifically challenging the requirement for 20 weeks of mandatory rental availability.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce the mandatory rental period to 10 weeks, with two weeks required during the summer season.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised condition was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition accordingly.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three infill dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included protecting an existing woodland by rezoning a portion of the property to Open Space.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement and proposed amendment consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans, representing good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 30-unit development, and the Official Plan Amendment appeal was withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan in principle, withholding its final order pending finalization of the instruments.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit the continued use of an existing driving range and seasonal sale of Christmas trees for a period of ten years.

The Town did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the temporary use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, and meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the amended variance subject to conditions.

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's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 40-storey and 44-storey towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the Region of York Official Plan, and represents appropriate transit-oriented intensification within a Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle subject to the finalization of the instruments and satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 27-unit townhouse development.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to applicable official plans, and protects natural heritage features.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, while withholding the final order pending an agreement on the Site Plan Approval.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 70-unit townhouse development on a former tannery site.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances sought to retroactively validate exterior alterations made to accommodate wheelchair access.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving amended variances and conditions to remove certain paved areas to ensure proper drainage.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a larger backyard shed (23.78 square metres where 10 square metres is permitted).

The applicant agreed to remove a second, smaller shed.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, and with the support of City staff and neighbours, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions including tree planting.