Stephen Armstrong

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 26-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on all issues except the required number of ground-floor retail units, which was later resolved through revised amendments requiring four at-grade retail units and a holding provision to ensure the design reinforces the local main street character.

An adjacent property owner opposed the settlement, raising concerns about shadow, privacy, and transition.

The Tribunal found that the revised amendments provide appropriate transition in scale, mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods, conform with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments in principle.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment No. 115 (OPA-115), which mandated that a minimum of 10% of housing units in certain residential developments be provided as below-market affordable housing.

The appellants argued that these policies were tantamount to Inclusionary Zoning and were ultra vires the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while the policies did not formally constitute Inclusionary Zoning, they were tantamount to it.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the City failed to demonstrate that the mandated affordable housing policies were 'practicable' as required by section 16(1)(a.1) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the mandatory affordable housing policies in OPA-115 were ultra vires the Act and allowed the appeals in part, striking down the offending policies.

The appellant appealed the Town of Newmarket's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and referred a site plan application for a proposed 79-unit apartment building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted unchallenged expert planning evidence that the development represents appropriate intensification, conforms to the applicable official plans and provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the finalization of a site plan agreement.