Sean Galbraith

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 10-storey, 50-unit mid-rise building.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several technical conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to alter an existing 16-unit multi-residential building by adding two additional units.

The proposal involved subdividing a large rear unit into three smaller units, requiring variances for the maximum number of units and minimum average floor area.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposal represented a modest and compatible form of residential intensification that met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's enactment of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment permitting a nine-storey, 62-unit residential apartment building.

The appellants raised concerns regarding shadow impacts, traffic safety, tree preservation, and conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's and City's experts, finding that the proposed development would not create undue adverse impacts on traffic or forestry.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendment has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were dismissed.