Ozan Kemal

The appellant appealed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act regarding a site plan application to permit the development of three warehouse buildings in the Town of Oakville.

The parties reached a settlement and agreed upon a revised site plan application.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised application is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the applicable official plans and zoning by-laws, and represents good planning, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised site plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 7-storey proposal, contingent on the appellant acquiring a strip of public laneway.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policy and conforms to the applicable official and secondary plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the conveyance of the laneway.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment No. 115 (OPA-115), which mandated that a minimum of 10% of housing units in certain residential developments be provided as below-market affordable housing.

The appellants argued that these policies were tantamount to Inclusionary Zoning and were ultra vires the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while the policies did not formally constitute Inclusionary Zoning, they were tantamount to it.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the City failed to demonstrate that the mandated affordable housing policies were 'practicable' as required by section 16(1)(a.1) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the mandatory affordable housing policies in OPA-115 were ultra vires the Act and allowed the appeals in part, striking down the offending policies.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development with 26- and 30-storey towers on a shared podium.

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

The Tribunal found the amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and City Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the Official Plan Amendment approved and the Zoning By-law Amendment approved in principle, subject to finalization.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey seniors' residence.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendment in principle, issuing an interim order pending finalization of the zoning by-law draft and servicing agreements.