Robert Russell

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 21-lot residential development.

At the hearing, the appellant withdrew the Draft Plan appeal after reaching a settlement with the Town.

A third party objected to the withdrawal and requested the Tribunal withhold its order on the ZBA pending a cost sharing agreement.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the third party's request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to mandate a private cost sharing agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the ZBA, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the Town's Official Plan.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Committee of Adjustment requiring a Metrolinx Environmental Easement to be registered on title for a residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal removed the easement condition, finding it was an unreasonable burden without planning justification, especially given the absence of Metrolinx at the hearing.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Committee of Adjustment regarding an environmental easement.

The appellant's planner initially filed an Expert Witness Statement addressing only the appealed condition.

Upon learning that a TLAB hearing is a de novo hearing of the entire application, the appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file a revised Expert Witness Statement addressing all requested variances.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding no prejudice as there were no other parties, and scheduled a new hearing date.

The appellant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 7 (Georgetown GO Station Area Secondary Plan) as they applied to their property.

The appellant sought to retain the previous zoning to permit a residential apartment building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the site was not needed for intensification to meet the Secondary Plan's goals, and that without a specific development proposal, compatibility with the adjacent low-density neighbourhood could not be adequately assessed.

The Tribunal also found that any alleged downzoning was justified by the public interest in comprehensive planning.

The applicant appealed conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision to facilitate a townhouse development.

The contentious conditions required the applicant to obtain concurrence from CN Railway for drainage alterations, enter into an agreement with CN, and grant CN an environmental easement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that these conditions inappropriately delegated approval authority to a private company and were not reasonable land use planning matters.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the contentious conditions and revised the clearance condition accordingly.