Stew Elkins

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of two consent applications to create two new residential lots from an existing property in the Village of Queenston.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts on land use planning, cultural heritage, transportation, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lots represent appropriate modest infill that conforms to the Town's Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted evidence that the development would not negatively impact adjacent cultural heritage resources.

While acknowledging concerns about sight lines for the middle lot's driveway due to the road's steep grade, the Tribunal found this could be addressed through the required municipal entrance permit process.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey, 148-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the proposal was an appropriate form of redevelopment along a major arterial road, achieved a compatible interface with abutting land uses through strategic design methods, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed.