Scott Waterhouse

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Clarington's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 136 regarding the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan.

One appellant reached a settlement with the municipality to modify specific policies and schedules, including removing their lands from the secondary plan maps and adjusting mixed-use building permissions.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the regional official plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement for that appellant and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby's Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal to facilitate the development of a distribution warehouse centre.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for Site Plan Approval and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 78-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement resolving outstanding engineering matters through a single set of conditions of approval.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the site plan and draft plan of subdivision subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 78-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with provincial policy, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of several pre-requisite conditions.