Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200286

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Magdalene Karkoulis

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 163 Union Street

Municipality: City of Kingston

Municipal File No.: D10-046-2019

LPAT Case No.: PL200286

LPAT File No.: PL200286

LPAT Case Name: Karkoulis v. Kingston (City)

Heard: Written Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Lawrence Moskovic (“Appellant”) City of Kingston (“City”)

Counsel Jennifer Savini Did not participate

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND M. RUSSO ON OCTOBER 9, 2021, AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is known municipally as 163 Union Street (the “Property”) and is a corner lot located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Albert Street and Union Street in the City of Kingston (“City”) and legally described as PLAN A12 Lot 935 Pt LOTS 928; AND 929.

2The Property has an area of approximately 1822.6 square metres (“sq m”), a frontage of approximately 41 metres (“m”) on Union Street and a frontage of approximately 47.3 m on Albert Street.

3Magdaline Karkoulis had applied to the City Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”) and proposed to sever and create two new building lots and retain a third lot with an existing designated home designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

4The C of A met and heard the applications for the Property on June 22, 2020. The decision of the C of A was to approve one severance and lot creation for the Albert Street lot proposed, however, to deny the second lot applied for fronting on Union Street. Subsequent to this C of A decision, Ms. Karkoulis chose to exercise her statutory right to appeal the denial, pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. p. 13, as amended.

5The Appellant held an accepted offer to purchase the Property at the time the appeal was applied for. The sale of the Property has occurred, and the Appellant is now the current owner.

6During the Tribunal’s case management conference (“CMC”) the City did not make an appearance. During the CMC it was determined that the hearing of the matter would be converted to a written hearing. The Parties had been given the date of March 10, 2021 to make their written submissions to the Tribunal. The only party to make submissions was the Appellant (Exhibit 1).

QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES

7The Tribunal received uncontested written land use planning and heritage expert evidence from Youko Leclerc-Dejardins and Andre Scheinman.

8Youko Leclerc-Dejardins is a senior planner with Fotenn Consultants Inc. and is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

9Andre Scheinman is a heritage preservation consultant, with more than 40 years of experience in assessing planning and preserving heritage sites and is a member of the Association for Preservation Technology International.

10After reviewing the curriculum vitae provided, the Tribunal qualified both witnesses and accepted the written submissions of Youko Leclerc-Dejardins as (Exhibit 2), and Andre Scheinman (Exhibit 3).

HERITAGE PRESERVATION EVIDENCE

11The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In support of this application the Appellant filed a Conceptual Site Plan, Planning Justification Letter, Heritage Impact Statement (“HIS”), Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, and obtained an Archaeological Clearance Letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sports.

12After reviewing the results of the HIS and taking into consideration Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”) as it relates to the designation, it is the opinion of Mr. Scheinman that the proposed severed lots would not denigrate the heritage character of the Property if great care is exercised in the design of the proposed infill dwellings.

13Mr. Scheinman indicated that the HIS found that the proposed severance has no direct impact to the existing heritage building or its attributes. The loss of some of the outdoor yard structures, like to the cabana and pool, are not considered to have a heritage impact given that they only date back to 2004.

14He further stated that any new dwelling structures should be designed to fit within the heritage context and character of the existing residential dwellings.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

15It is the expert opinion of Mr. Leclerc-Dejardins that the proposed consent to sever has proper regard to the Planning Act and meets the criteria of s. 51 (24).

16In the submissions of Mr. Leclerc-Dejardins, the Tribunal was brought to six sections of the PPS that include:

1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:

a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;

b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including single-detached, additional residential units, multi-unit housing, affordable housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;

c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns;

e) promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs;

1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs

And,

1.6.6.2 Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety. Within settlement areas with existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services, intensification and redevelopment shall be promoted wherever feasible to optimize the use of the services.

17It is the expert opinion of Mr. Leclerc-Dejardins that the proposed consent before the Tribunal meets the above stated objectives and should be considered consistent with the PPS.

18In the Official Plan of the City, (the “OP”), the Property is located with the City Urban Boundary that calls for organized intensification of underutilized properties. It is the opinion of Mr. Leclerc-Dejardins that the proposed consent application would be considered an opportunity for minor intensification and minor re-development that conform with the goals of the OP.

19The Property in its entirety, is designated to be part of Zoning By-law No. 8499 (“ZBL-8499”). The ZBL-8499 permitted uses include single-family dwellings with a minimum lot area of 370 sq m. The proposed existing retained lot would be 985.7 sq m, proposed severed lot fronting on Union Street would be 370.3 sq m, and the proposed severed lot fronting on to Albert Street would be 466.6 sq m. All three proposed lots would consist of a single-family dwelling and conform to the ZBL-8499.

ANALYSYS AND FINDINGS

20The Tribunal has determined that the proposal has met and has had regard to the criteria of s. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal has given proper regard to the impact on heritage features, the adequate provisions of a full range of housing, orderly development of safe and healthy communities and appropriate location for growth and development. The proposal conforms with the OP and the Property is considered a suitable location for infill development that is supported by existing municipal infrastructure.

21The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the Tribunal finds that the proposal represents development that is considered to be a minor infilling of an underutilized property which is encouraged in the City OP. In arriving at this determination the Tribunal did take into consideration the participant statement that was received.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Exhibit 1, Schedule “B”.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

MEMBER

“M. Russo”

M Russo

member

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.