Sarah Knoll

The applicants appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development at 393 Rymal Road West.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held an uncontested hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified amendment was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law was amended accordingly.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Permit Application to permit a 975-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage school building.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal to improve building transitions and heritage conservation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's decision denying several minor variances required to construct a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City reached a settlement that slightly reduced the requested garage projections.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding minor variance and site plan applications to permit a mixed-use development consisting of three residential towers above ground floor commercial uses.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered amended variances and a revised site plan agreed to by the parties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the site plan represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, the variances were authorized, and the site plan was approved subject to conditions.