Aurora (HGD) Inc. v. Aurora (Town), 2021 CanLII 125759

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210182

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Aurora (HGD) Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: 6000-17

Property Address/Description: 21 Golf Links Drive

Municipality: Town of Aurora

Municipal File No.: MV-2021-04

OLT Case No.: PL210182

OLT File No.: PL210182

OLT Case Name: Aurora (HGD) Inc. v. Aurora (Town)

Heard: August 3, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Aurora (HGD) Inc.

Mark Flowers

Town of Aurora

Lia Boritz Denise Baker Patricia DeSario

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter before the Tribunal was an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the refusal by that Town of Aurora (“Town”) Committee of Adjustment (“CofA”) of an application of a minor variance by Aurora (HGD) Inc. (”Applicant”) for a property municipally known as 21 Golf Links Drive, Lot 42, 19T-15A01 (“Subject Site”).

2The Subject Site is part of a former golf course located within an established residential neighbourhood. After the closure of the golf course the Applicant purchased the property with the intent to redevelop the lands. Through mediation a settlement for a draft plan of subdivision was approved by the Tribunal under the regime of the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”).

3On February 11, 2021 the CofA rendered a decision on three separate application by the Applicant to allow for an increase to the maximum lot coverage for three lots located within the settled draft plan of subdivision. The CofA approved two of the lot coverage minor variances.

4The Subject Site is zoned R3(466) in the Town Zoning By-law No. 6000-17, which allows for a maximum lot coverage of 35% for a dwelling. The Applicant has proposed to construct a two-storey dwelling with a lot coverage of 41.1%. The Tribunal was informed that the lot area is 589 square metres, with a lot frontage of 18.6 metres (“m”), and a lot depth of 31 m.

EXPERT WITNESSES

5For the ease of the reader, the Tribunal qualified without objections Matthew Cory for the Applicant, and Allan Ramsay for the Town, to give expert witness testimony in the field of land use planning.

THE FOUR TESTS

6In determining this matter, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an application for a minor variance has met the four tests as prescribed under s. 45(1) of the Act.

7Does the application conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?

8It is the opinion of Mr. Cory that the application of minor variance conforms to the general intent of the Town Official Plan (“OP”). The Tribunal was informed that the Subject Site is designated in the OP to be in a Stable Neighbourhoods. This designation is prominently intended to be residential in nature.

9While the application for minor variance requests a 6.1% increase in lot coverage, the proposed two (2)-storey dwelling would still meet the minimum yard setback requirements. Mr. Cory opined that as the proposed development would still meet the requirements and fit within the building envelope it will maintain the general intend and purpose of the OP

10Mr. Cory directed the Tribunal to the Staff Report to the CofA dated February 11, 2021. The Staff had made comment to the CofA that the application was a compatible and generally consistent built form to the existing neighbourhood.

11In contrast, Mr. Ramsey testified that the overdevelopment of the land would not be considered to be sympathetic to the built form and character of the existing neighbourhood as indented under s. 8.1.1 of the OP.

12It was the evidence of Mr. Ramsey that s. 8.3 of the OP sets development polices for a Stable Neighbourhood. Most relevant to this application Mr. Ramsey highlighted the following sections:

a) New development and site alteration abutting existing residential development shall be sympathetic to the form and character of the existing development and shall be compatible with regard to building scale and urban design.

c) Through the implementing Zoning By-law and/or through site plan control, specific measures including, but not limited to, building setbacks, landscaping and fencing, may be required in order to ensure that new development is appropriate in the context of the adjacent uses and the surrounding neighbourhood.

d) All new development within the ‘Stable Neighbourhoods’ designation shall have a maximum height of 3 storeys or 9 metres, whichever is less.

13It is the opinion of Mr. Ramsey that the proposed application does not meet the intent of the above stated OP policies.

14Does the application conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?

15It was the opinion of Staff to the CofA that the proposed increase to 41.1% lot coverage is generally consistent to the scale and massing of other buildings immediate surrounding area and the draft plan of subdivision.

16Mr. Cory informed that Tribunal that as the proposed development would remain within the setbacks of the property lines as prescribe in the Zoning By-law. From a pedestrian point of view the increase in lot coverage would not be noticeable from a street view.

17Mr. Cory agreed with the Staff report that the requested increase in lot coverage meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.

18Mr. Ramsey gave the opinion that the purpose of the Zoning By-law was to regulate the maximum lot coverage size. Lots of a similar nature to the Subject Site are permitted to a maximum lot coverage of 35% as established through the OMB led mediation.

19It is the opinion of Mr. Ramsey that compared to other lots in the area the overall scale and massing of the proposed development will appear as an imposing and dominate fixture along the streetscape. By allowing this he restated that the dwelling will not be in character with the other existing and planned buildings in the surrounding area.

20Are the variances considered desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Site?

21The Parties both agree that the Subject Site is appropriate for a development of a single detached dwelling. Both Parties agree that the application have no issues, has regard, and conforms with the higher level Provincial and Regional planning policies and documents.

22Mr. Cory described the Subject Site as part of an ongoing housing development. As such the character and build form would be inline with the context of the area and the other houses being developed by the Applicant.

23Mr. Ramsey gave the opinion that should the Tribunal allow the minor variance that development would not be appropriate as the proposed lot coverage he would consider to be an overdevelopment of the Subject Site. Mr. Ramsey indicated the proposed dwelling has a scale and massing that does not keep with the character of the neighbourhood.

24Is the variance minor in nature?

25Mr. Cory reiterated that given the yard setbacks will be maintained, from a streetscape point of view the appearance of the proposed development would be considered minimal at best. The structure and architectural design of the proposed development is inline with the other houses that have been or a being constructed in the subdivision. Permitted lot coverage for the draft plan of subdivision range from 35% to 42%. The request of 41.1% falls within the range and should be considered minor.

26In the opinion of Mr. Ramsey, the proposed dwelling would create an imposing and dominate focal point to the streetscape that should be considered out of character to the adjacent properties and area.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

27Having reviewed the application and hearing the expert planning evidence by Mr. Cory and Mr. Ramsey, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed application meets the criteria of the four tests of a minor variance as prescribed in s. 45(1) of the Act.

28The Tribunal finds that the application is generally consistent with the existing neighbourhood and the approved planned subdivision. As part of the new build subdivision the proposed house will be inline with the style and character of the other approved new development housing on the street.

29While the application is for an increase to the lot coverage of 6.1%, the Tribunal is satisfied that it should be given minor consideration and that it continues to fall within the average range of lot coverage and still remains within the required yard setbacks.

30The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the GP, and as maintained by both the Town and Regional 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.

ORDER

31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 6000-17 is authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. That the variance only applies to the subject property, in substantial conformity with the plan attached as ‘Appendix ‘D’ to this Staff Report, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designate.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

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.