Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 28, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210305

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

Applicant and Appellant: Roberto Drelini, Adam Szuba, Tracy Szuba

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 654 Rockway Drive

Municipality: City of Kitchener

Municipal File No.: B 2021-021

OLT Case No.: PL210305

OLT File No.: PL210305

OLT Case Name: Drelini v. Kitchener (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Roberto Drelini, Adam Szuba, Tracy Szuba

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 654 Rockway Drive

Municipality: City of Kitchener

Municipal File No.: B 2021-023

OLT Case No.: PL210305

OLT File No.: PL210307

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

Applicant and Appellant: Roberto Drelini, Adam Szuba, Tracy Szuba

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 654 Rockway Drive

Municipality: City of Kitchener

Municipal File No.: B 2021-022

OLT Case No.: PL210305

OLT File No.: PL210306

Heard: October 20, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Roberto Drelini, Adam Szuba, Tracy Szuba	Martin Mahlstedt* and Michael Boyd*, Articling Student
City of Kitchener	Katherine Hughes*
Phil and Sharon Hartigan	Self Represented

DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1Roberto Drelini, Adam Szuba and Tracy Szuba (“Appellants”) have appealed the refusal of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Kitchener to grant consent to sever property known as 654 Rockway Drive in order to create three new lots and one retained lot to be developed for semi-detached dwelling units.

2There are no variances from the zoning provisions required in connection with the requests to sever as all four proposed lots meet the required minimum frontage and lot area requirements and the current R4 zoning permits the semi-detached units proposed. The existing lot is an anomaly, being a double lot on the underlying plan of subdivision

3One request for Party status was conferred to Phil and Sharon Hartigan, owners of 644 Rockway Drive, abutting the subject property. The Hartigans proffered Allan Ramsay who was qualified to give opinion evidence in areas of land use planning in support of the refusal of the application. Mrs. Hartigan also gave testimony against the application.

4The Appellants proffered two witnesses in support of the requested consent to sever: Craig Dumart, Senior Development Planner for the City of Kitchener, under summons as the author of the recommendation report in support of the application which was considered by the Committee of Adjustment, and David Galbraith, who was qualified to assist the Tribunal through opinion evidence in areas of land use planning.

5The City was represented by Counsel and available to assist the Tribunal should need arise, but otherwise but took no formal position in the hearing.

6In total 14 households, set out in Attachment 1, requested and were granted Participant status and the written concerns of these individuals was considered in the rendering of this decision.

THE ISSUES AND EVIDENCE

7As between the three planners who testified there was agreement that the proposal is consistent with and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”), the Regional Official Plan, and had regard to the matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Planning Act as the proposed infill represents limited intensification and efficient use of existing infrastructure within a designated settlement area. It was also agreed that both the Low Density designation in the Official Plan and the R4 zoning of the subject property permit both single detached and semi-detached units.

8It is however, the opinion of Mr. Ramsay, in contrast to that shared by Mssrs. Dumart and Galbraith who both testified in support of the application, that the proposed introduction of a different built form, being semi-detached units on lots approximately half the width of the average of the 31 detached lots on the street between Doon Road and Floral Crescent (7.5m frontages proposed whereas the next smallest is 13.7m with the average being 17.4m), does not conform to the Official Plan policies with respect to infill being sensitive to and compatible with the established character and the surrounding context, and therefore fails to satisfy two of the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act which govern in the consideration of granting consent to sever. Sections 51(24)(c) and (f) respectfully require the Tribunal to consider:

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision if any; and

(f) the dimension and shapes of the lots

9In support of his opinion Mr. Ramsay directed the Tribunal to Official Plan policies 15.D.3.3(a) and 15.3.4 :

15.D.3.3 To support the successful integration of different housing types, specifically multiple residential developments, through new development/redevelopment and/or residential intensification, within lands designated Low Rise Residential […] the City will apply design principles in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. An emphasis will be placed on:

a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design;

and

15.D.3.4 All new residential buildings, additions and/or modification to existing residential buildings in predominantly low density neighbourhoods should be compatible with and respect the massing, scale, design and physical character of the established neighbourhood, and have both appropriate landscaped areas and parking areas provided on site.

10Mr. Ramsay conceded that when dealing in generalities, detached and semi-detached dwelling units can very often be considered to be compatible. However, within this specific physical context, being Rockway Road running westerly from Doon Road to Floral Crescent, the proposed lot widths and resulting built form will constitute a significantly more intense form of development than the established character, which is to be respected, pursuant to the Official Plan policies permitting limited intensification, and policy 17.E.20.5(b), governing Consent applications.

11Section 17.E.20.5 reads as follows:

Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where:

b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of the surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, area and configurations;

12Both Messrs. Dumart and Galbraith support their opinions with respect to the proposal conforming to the official plan policies regarding compatibility and fit in part, by directing the Tribunal to the existence of one pair of semidetached units and a small walk up apartment building located to the east of Doon Road, (the latter of which is located in a different zone). In all other respects, the evidence of these witnesses relied upon the existing designation and zoning, absent any thoughtful analysis of the direction of the official plan policies to be considered when considering infill development.

13Mrs. Hartigan spoke to her learning curve, and that of her neighbours, as reflected through the written submissions, and their shared inability to construe the proposal to be compatible with the existing pattern of development and streetscape of their portion of Rockway Road, which has largely been maintained intact to mature since construction in the 1930s and 40s.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal accepts the shared opinions of the three planning witnesses that the proposal has regard to the matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the policies of the PPS with respect to intensification and efficient use of infrastructure and conforms to both the Growth Plan and the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and is an appropriate location for limited intensification.

15The Tribunal however prefers and accepts the evidence of Mr. Ramsay that the application as proposed does not conform with the official plan policies with respect to appropriate infill cited in this decision, and fails to respect the established character of the surrounding area.

16In recognizing and acknowledging the intensification directives of the provincial policy, Mr. Ramsay, as distinguished from the other planning witnesses, presented a more balanced analysis of the policies of the City’s Official Plan, which is acknowledged by the PPS as being the most important vehicle for implementing the intensification initiatives. In his summary opinion, the witness described the determination of appropriate infill as being an exercise in balancing efficiency and compatibility and fit, a balance which this specific application fails to achieve.

17The Tribunal therefore finds, and is not satisfied, that the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act is met by the current application. The double lot is capable of supporting a form of limited intensification which could address the policies of the official plan to respect to ‘massing, scale, design and physical character of the established neighbourhood”.

ORDER

18The appeal is therefore dismissed.

“Sharyn Vincent”

SHARYN VINCENT

VICE-CHAIR

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Status	Name
Participant Status	James Axler
Participant Status	Timothy McCrabb
Participant Status	Sarah Francis
Participant Status	Jessica Stroebel
Participant Status	Dwyer Sullivan
Participant Status	Bruce/Heather Woodley
Participant Status	Margaret Cameron
Participant Status	Loretta/Larry Sangster
Participant Status	Veronica Malfara
Participant Status	Robert Hooton
Participant Status	Peter Rath
Participant Status	Lori Mark
Participant Status	Robyn Gurney
Participant Status	Paul/Christine Berry