PLG 610 Study Guide - Winter 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Waste Management, Vaughan, Variance
12 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
PLG 610
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Sunday, February 25, 2018
PLANNING LAW II: CASE STUDIES
!
WEEK 2 READINGS
BONUS ZONING SECTION 37
Urban Corp v.
Toronto (2015)
-Site is close to Gardiner Expwy, Hwy 427 and Brown’s Line GO station;!
-Former school site; proposal is to construct 98 units, 12 of which will be
single-detached dwellings and the balance of 86 will be constructed as
semi-detached homes. !
-Will also include public roads
-Applicant accommodated to city planning staff’s concerns (92 dwelling
units >> 98, increase in number of semi-detached dwellings, !
-Because of the many standards satisfied and benefits reaped under S.
37, the city planning approved the proposal !
-City sought for a contribution of $500,000 — for local park improvements
(play structures, landscape improvements, splash pad) to satisfy the s. 37
requirement!
-The applicant found that there was a failure to establish a basis for
contribution pursuant to s. 37 — community service and facility study in
the area found that existing services met the needs of current residents
and met requirements for future growth. !
-If there was community need, it would be for a daycare !
-Applicant also though the amount was too expensive — the development
did not match the need and contributions made by similar projects. Just a
dvlpmt for town-houses and these projects typically contribute $50,000 to
$150,000 — dvlpmt’s were being charged 1600s per unit!
-No link between the project and the benefits sought? !
-DECISION: appeal is allowed in part! $150,000; cash payments are vague
— hard to establish a nexus — doesn’t say where the money is going
exactly
HOLDING BY-LAW SECTION 36
Soo Mill Lumber
Co v Sault Ste.
Marie (City) 1972
-Court looked at the provisions of the act and the judge thought it was
an infringement of the property right!
-Therefore, if the municipality wasn’t allowed to do that, the property
wasn’t allowed to either
Page # of #1 14
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Soo Mill Lumber
Co v Sault Ste.
Marie (City) 1973
-Municipalities are allowed to put a hold symbol on a plot of land to
freeze a dvlpmt bc planning is foreword thinking and it meets their
visions of the city (s 40 of bylaw 4500)!
-The court originally looked at provisions of the act and it didn’t
specifically say that you can freeze dvlpmt — judge said it was an
infringement to property owner rights so municipality shouldn’t be
allowed to freeze (1972) !
-In 1973, this was appealed to the Ontario Court and overturned —
appealed further up to supreme court of Canada — understand how
the court analyzed property rights to freeze dvlpmt on private lands —
do municipalities have the right to interfere with property rights to go
forward with holding provisions?!
-Example of ZBL with Hold provision
2403502 Ontario
Inc. v Markham
(City) 2017
-The holding provision (an E.A and transpo. Study had to be done;
could not be done by Land owner, done by bigger agent) !
-The proponent applied to get their H symbol removed but it was
refused because they didn’t do the studies!!!
-Proponent said that it’s no fair because they have no control over the
studies being done and they shouldn’t be held back from what they
want to do with their property !
-Board found that the Holding provision should still remain in effect until
the completion of EA, expected no later than 2019 (34.26.6) —
Applicant thought EA was unnecessary BUT, the board concluded it
was necessary so the holding bylaw stays
INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAWS SECTION 38
HOLDING BY-LAW SECTION 36
Roman Catholic
Corporation
-Basis of bad faith!
-Decision of Ontario Court of Justice !
-Property was owned by an industrial company — sold a portion to a school
“roman catholic school” — property was already zoned as a school!
-Wanted to open a school for French-Catholic students!
-Retained Mr. Richard Jones hired as a planner to lobby!
-An interim Ctrl By-law was passed with no reference of the study; they just
passed it with no planning report to support. !
-Municipal planner even said it was a bad idea, wasn’t appropriate — should
be dealt with the normal provisions of the planning act to re-zone!
-Paragraph 29: Court says this is a big deal and you need a concrete planning
reasons as to why you are passing an interim by law — it is to STUDY things
— and you should not single out specific properties !
-Nothing in the Planning Act that says you have to produce a planning report
to pass this kind of by-law but, it wouldn’t be a bad idea
Page # of #2 14
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Site is close to gardiner expwy, hwy 427 and brown"s line go station; Former school site; proposal is to construct 98 units, 12 of which will be single-detached dwellings and the balance of 86 will be constructed as semi-detached homes. Applicant accommodated to city planning sta "s concerns (92 dwelling units >> 98, increase in number of semi-detached dwellings, Because of the many standards satis ed and bene ts reaped under s. City sought for a contribution of ,000 for local park improvements (play structures, landscape improvements, splash pad) to satisfy the s. 37 requirement. If there was community need, it would be for a daycare. Applicant also though the amount was too expensive the development did not match the need and contributions made by similar projects. Just a dvlpmt for town-houses and these projects typically contribute ,000 to. ,000 dvlpmt"s were being charged 1600s per unit. Hard to establish a nexus doesn"t say where the money is going exactly.
