Ted Davidson

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an increase from 35 to 52 townhouse units, along with increased lot coverage and building height.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, finding that the requested variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification near a major transit station area and that the City's concerns were more appropriately addressed at the site plan and subdivision stages.

The appellant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a 0.6m side yard setback for a third-storey addition to an existing townhouse.

The Tribunal heard from two land use planning experts.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellant's expert that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and rejected the evidence of the City's expert who repeatedly ventured outside his area of expertise.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

Jane Teston Holdings Inc. appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an 11-storey (later revised to 8-storey) residential building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was an overdevelopment and would cause unacceptable traffic impacts on local roads.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the traffic modelling was appropriate and that the development represented a gentle form of intensification that conformed with the Growth Plan, York Region Official Plan, and City of Vaughan Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the amendments in principle.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey mid-rise residential building.

The City's planning staff supported the development, but City Council opposed it, arguing the scale of intensification was inappropriate for the area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent on the finalization of the planning instruments.