Ryan Guetter

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the redevelopment of the subject lands with six residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until various pre-requisite conditions are satisfied.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 139, raising concerns about land use compatibility with its existing industrial operations.

The parties reached a settlement that included updated policy language requiring land use compatibility studies, noise mitigation measures, and holding provisions until noise reports confirm appropriate designations.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed to approve the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a mixed-use residential development.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal issued an interim decision withholding its final order until certain conditions were met.

Upon confirmation that the conditions were fulfilled, the Tribunal issued a final order allowing the appeals in part, amending the official plan and zoning by-law, and dismissing the appeal regarding the City's new comprehensive zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use residential development.

The parties reached a settlement endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final instruments.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four minor variances required to construct a two-storey south side addition and a rear partial second-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances for building length, depth, floor space index, and side yard setbacks met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with the neighbourhood character and would not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a portion of its commercial plaza property by Metrolinx for a grade separation project.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property was a standalone mixed-use residential redevelopment, rejecting Metrolinx's argument that an assemblage of adjoining properties was required.

The Tribunal awarded $4,570,000 for the market value of the fee simple taking, declining to apply the 'before and after' valuation method under section 14(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal also awarded $50,000 for a temporary easement and $1,321,061 for injurious affection caused by the grade separation and loss of access.

Interest was awarded at 6% from the date Metrolinx acquired legal possession.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a multi-storey residential development on lands located within the Humber River Valley.

In this Phase 1 hearing, the sole issue was whether the subject lands are developable given their natural heritage and hazard constraints, including significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, and flood hazards.

The Tribunal found that while the lands contain these significant features, they are developable in principle, as the Provincial Policy Statement permits development if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The appeals were ordered to advance to a Phase 2 hearing to evaluate the specific proposed development.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use high-rise development.

At a settlement hearing, the parties advised that the Official Plan Amendment was no longer required and presented a detailed Zoning By-law Amendment for approval in principle.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented desirable housing intensification that supports transit and conforms with the applicable Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the Official Plan Amendment appeal and allowed the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal in part, approving it in principle 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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a proposed new three-storey house.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a revised proposal with reduced variances for building length, depth, and floor space index.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 31,883 square metre urban distribution and logistics facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement resolving the primary issue of heavy truck access.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised site plan was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans.

The Tribunal approved the revised site plan in principle, withholding its final order pending execution of a site plan agreement.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 324-unit residential development.

The applicant and the City reached a settlement, which was opposed by an abutting property owner who argued the proposed lot sizes and setbacks would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on his estate residential property.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was compatible with the broader neighbourhood, provided appropriate transition, and conformed with the applicable official plan policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the proposed instruments were approved in principle.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of her property by the City of Toronto.

The City expropriated the land to build a new childcare centre after selling its previous childcare site to Metrolinx for the Eglinton LRT project.

The Tribunal determined that the 'scheme' to be ignored for valuation purposes was the childcare centre, not the Eglinton LRT.

Finding the highest and best use to be an 8-storey mixed-use mid-rise development, the Tribunal awarded market value compensation of $4,326,350 based on a rate of $70 per square foot buildable.

A claim for disturbance damages was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new two-storey residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the requested lot coverage variance to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances for lot coverage, setbacks, driveway access, and building height met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

Following an interim decision allowing the appeals, the Tribunal received the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and a request on consent for minor revisions to the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions.

The Tribunal approved the final instruments and ordered the amendment of the zoning by-law and approval of the draft plan of subdivision, with final approval delegated to the City of Oshawa.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new two-storey residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with adjacent neighbours, resulting in revised variances for building length, depth, and floor space index.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal respected the physical character of the neighbourhood, mitigated tree impacts, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the revised variances subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances for properties on Forest Hill Road.

The applications sought to adjust lot lines and construct new three-storey detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontested expert land use planning evidence supporting the applications.

The tribunal found that the proposed consent simply adjusted existing property lines and the variances would allow appropriately sited dwellings that reinforce the neighbourhood's physical character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved, subject to engineering conditions.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant, had appealed the instruments on grounds relating to human rights, affordable housing, and procedural fairness.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to explain how the proposed instruments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or provincial plans, as required by the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds upon which the instruments could be refused, and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.