Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 19, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200630
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Referred by: H&R REIT (2121 Cornwall Road Portfolio Inc.)
Subject: Site Plan
Property Address/Description: 2175 Cornwall Road
Municipality: Town of Oakville
OLT Case No.: PL200630
OLT File No.: PL200630
OLT Case Name: H&R REIT vs. Oakville (Town)
Heard: September 16, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2121 Cornwall Road Portfolio Inc.
Peter Gross
Town of Oakville
Jennifer Huctwith
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
12121 Cornwall Road Portfolio Inc. (“Appellant”) filed a site plan application with the Town of Oakville (“Town”) regarding proposed landscaping, parking and other changes to the property located at 2175 Cornwall Road (“subject property”). The Town failed to make a decision regarding the application and the Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.
2On September 13, 2021, the Appellant informed the Tribunal that it had reached a proposed settlement of the appeal with the Town and on September 16, 2021, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing to address the proposed settlement.
ISSUES
3On a site plan application appeal under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act, the issues that the Tribunal must determine are whether the proposed application:
a) complies with the requirements set out in s. 41 of the Planning Act;
b) is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));
c) conforms with applicable provincial plans (in the present case, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”)); and,
d) represents good planning, including conformity with applicable official plans (in the present case, the Region of Halton (“Region”) Official Plan and the Town’s Official Plan) and zoning requirements.
The Tribunal also must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the information and material that the municipal council received in relation to the matter, as required under s. 2.1(2) of the Planning Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The Parties’ Evidence and Submissions
4On September 13, 2021, the Appellant filed an affidavit sworn by Benjamin Clare, dated September 13, 2021. He is a land use planner who has been retained by the Appellant. He also provided testimony at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
5Mr. Clare stated that the proposed settlement would provide site plan approval for the continuation of warehousing uses on the subject property with an increase in parking area, creation of new access points, and enhanced landscaping. He stated that the proposed site plan does not include any new buildings. It would facilitate parking for delivery vans, loading spaces at the rear of the building, and employee parking both inside and outside the existing building. It would allow for a total of 689 parking spaces. He said that under the proposed site plan, the exterior of the existing building would include a new vehicle exit on the north side, a new loading door configuration, and architectural screening of rooftop mechanical units. He said the proposed site plan also includes a noise barrier consisting of a berm and fence north of the warehouse to mitigate noise emissions from trucks and vans.
6Mr. Clare opined that the proposed site plan complies with the requirements in s. 41 of the Planning Act. He stated that it identifies the existing warehouse and the proposed works to be provided, including the proposed expanded parking area, and includes an architectural site plan and building elevations identifying proposed modifications to the exterior of the existing building. He stated that the proposed site plan includes landscape plans identifying existing vegetation, vegetation proposed for removal, and proposed plantings and other landscape elements within and adjacent to the subject property. He said it also identifies barrier-free site elements, including parking and pedestrian walkway facilities. He said it complies with the s. 41 requirements for conditions to approval of the site plan and he opined that the proposed site plan conditions are appropriate. He said they seek to ensure that outstanding modifications or updates will be completed and the final plans will be coordinated.
7Mr. Clare opined that the proposed site plan is consistent with the PPS. He stated that the subject property is located within a Settlement Area, the lands are intended for growth and development and are appropriately serviced, and the proposed site plan facilitates a development that represents an efficient use of available infrastructure, including the existing warehouse. He said the existing road network can accommodate the proposed use.
8Mr. Clare opined that the proposed site plan conforms with the Growth Plan. He stated that subject property is located within a Provincially Significant Employment Zone under the Growth Plan and has access to arterial roadway corridors. He said the proposed site plan facilitates a development that would result in increased employment density and that impacts of surface parking would be mitigated through the installation the noise barrier and landscaping.
9Mr. Clare opined that the proposed site plan conforms with the Region’s Official Plan. He stated that the subject property is designated as Employment Area within the Urban Area under the Region’s Official Plan. He stated that the proposed site plan would facilitate a development that accommodates growth and promotes economic prosperity, maintains a high quality, sustainable natural environment, and provides for an appropriate range and balance of employment uses to meet long-term needs. He said it also conforms with the natural heritage policies in the Region’s Official Plan and provides for a 10 metre buffer from a protected significant woodland located on the subject property.
10Mr. Clare opined that the proposed site plan conforms with the Town’s Official Plan. He stated that the subject property is designated as Employment Area within Schedule A1 of the Town’s Official Plan, is within the Build Boundary inside the Urban Area on Schedule A2, and is designated Business Employment on Schedule G. He said the proposed site plan facilitates increased employment density in an area where employment-related land uses are permitted and he said the proposed development would contribute to the availability of a range of employment opportunities in the area. He stated that natural features and natural heritage systems have been considered and that although roughly 200 trees would need to be removed, 167 significant new trees would be added. He said the proposed site plan approval would be compatible with nearby residential uses through landscaping, the noise barrier, and a stone wall around the southern parking area. He noted that truck loading and garbage areas would be located beyond public view. Mr. Clare also stated that the proposed site plan has regard for the Town’s Livable by Design Manual, noting that the design and orientation of the buildings are compatible with the nearby neighbourhood and the proposed landscaping and parking address the policy’s provisions.
11Mr. Clare also noted that the subject property is zoned Business Employment (E2) under the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2014-014, which permits warehousing and office uses and the proposed development complies with the Zoning By-law’s regulations.
12Mr. Clare stated that the proposed site plan has regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those related to ecological protection, transportation, orderly development, employment, and economic well-being.
13Mr. Clare also opined that the proposed site plan addresses the concerns raised by the local community, including those related to noise and traffic safety, and constitutes good planning.
14The Town supported the Appellant’s evidence and submissions.
FINDINGS
15Based on Mr. Clare’s uncontradicted opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed site plan complies with the requirements in s. 41 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms with the Region’s Official Plan, conforms with the Town’s Official Plan, and constitutes good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the information and materials that Town Council had before it.
ORDER
16The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed, in part, and that the site plan for the subject property is approved in accordance with the site plan drawings attached as Schedule A to this Order and Decision and subject to the conditions attached as Schedule B to this Order and Decision.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
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.