Ralph Bouwmeester

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as a site plan application and a heritage alteration permit, to permit a 28-storey mixed-use building in the Church Street Village Character Area (CSVCA).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed tall building form was incompatible with the planned mid-rise context of the CSVCA under the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 382).

The Tribunal held that the proposal failed to conform to angular plane policies, would cast unacceptable new net shadows on Barbara Hall Park, and did not represent good planning or urban design despite its location in a Major Transit Station Area.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, which was opposed by a group of residents and a neighbouring seniors residence, Belmont House, primarily due to concerns over shadow impacts.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development adequately limits shadow impacts on Belmont House in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines, and that the settlement represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle.

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 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents an appropriate level of intensification for the site, which is located in an Urban Growth Centre.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments in principle, subject to conditions including the provision of a 2.0-metre road widening dedication to the City to enhance the public realm.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building and two townhouse blocks.

The municipality opposed the 9-storey building, arguing it did not conform to the 3-storey height limit in the applicable secondary plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, preferring the applicant's planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good planning by providing appropriate residential intensification on an under-utilized site along a major arterial road.

The Tribunal found the municipality's reliance on the dated secondary plan policies to be overly rigid and unreasonable.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building in the Downtown Core Precinct.

The City brought a motion to adjourn the hearing based on a Minister's oral announcement suggesting the Urban Growth Centre boundary would be moved, but the Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the Clergy principle to assess the application under the policies in force at the time it was submitted.

On the merits, the City argued the building should be limited to 22 storeys due to shadow, wind, and urban design impacts.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding no unacceptable impacts and concluding that the 29-storey proposal optimized the use of land, conformed to all relevant provincial and municipal policies, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the development of high-density mixed-use towers and townhouse units.

The City opposed the applications, raising concerns regarding building heights, urban design, shadow impacts, and the location of proposed parkland.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the revised proposals were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' expert evidence that the proposed developments promote efficient, transit-supportive land use and provide an appropriate range of housing options.

The final orders were withheld pending the finalization of the by-laws, a Section 37 agreement, and other conditions.