Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 09, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL190556
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Mi Yuk Li
Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 2010-100Z - Refusal of Application by City of Greater Sudbury
Existing Zoning: R1-5 Low Density Residential One
Proposed Zoning: R1-5(Special) Low Density Residential One Special
Purpose: To permit a shared-housing facility with a maximum of 12 guest rooms
Property Address/Description: 1305 Barry Downe Road
Municipality: City of Greater Sudbury
Municipality File No.: 751-6/19-8
OLT Case No.: PL190556
OLT File No.: PL190556
OLT Case Name: Li v. Greater Sudbury (City)
Heard: October 7, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Mi Yuk Li | Self-represented |
| City of Greater Sudbury | Stephen Watt* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision arises from a hearing regarding the appeal brought by Mi Yuk Li (“Applicant/Appellant”) of the refusal by the City of Greater Sudbury (“City”) of a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment relating to the property located at 1305 Barry Downe Road (“Subject Land”).
2The purpose of the application is to permit a shared housing facility (rooming house) with a maximum of 12 guest rooms. The use was established illegally and is subject to an Order to Comply and an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building, which were issued by Building Services on March 15, 2019. The owner is proposing to demolish an existing detached garage and install a parking area in the rear yard to accommodate up to six (6) vehicles.
WITNESSES
3The Applicant/Appellant provided evidence on her own behalf. She was assisted sparingly by her husband as a representative.
4The City presented Mauro Manzon, who was sworn and qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
5Mr. Manzon provided factual information about the site. He stated that the subject Land is located within a settlement area and forms a whole lot in a registered plan of subdivision (Lot 63, Plan M-217). The Subject Land is situated on the west side of Barry Downe Road at a mid-block location between Lamothe Street and Woodbine Avenue. The area is fully serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer. The road is constructed to an urban standard with sidewalks on both sides of the street. There is no centre-turn lane or bicycle lanes. Public transit service is available on Barry Downe Road with the closest transit stop approximately 40 metres to the south.
6Mr. Manzon stated that the total lot area of the Subject Land is 1,152 square metres, with 22.86 metres of frontage and a depth of 50 metres. A single-lane driveway is located in the southerly interior side yard. A parking pad has also been installed in the required front yard. There is no fencing along the southerly interior side lot line and rear lot line.
7The surrounding area is low density residential in character. Single detached dwellings abut to the north, south and west and also form the predominant use on adjacent blocks. The Subject Land is within walking distance of Cambrian College to the northeast and commercial uses on Lasalle Boulevard to the south.
8In a Case Management Conference leading up to this hearing, the Tribunal set an Issues List that will provide a framework of evidence for this hearing. The issues were identified as those raised by the City and others as raised by the Applicant/Appellant. These issues provide a focus for the review and analysis of evidence in the remainder of this decision.
9The Applicant/Appellant’s first issue states as follows;
Issue 1: Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (the “GPNO”), Policy 4?
10The Applicant/Appellant submitted that the GPNO espouses prosperity for Northern Ontario and is driven in part by rental and affordable housing. She added that the refusal of the City is inconsistent with the GPNO.
11Mr. Manzon stated that the City has policies for rental and affordable housing and has kept these updated. He opined that the planning implementations consistent with GPNO do not imply that rental and affordable housing is not to be guided by City Official Plan (the “Official Plan”) or the Zoning By-law (the “ZBL”) that apply to the Subject Land. Mr. Manzon opined that the Official Plan and the ZBL implement policies consistent with the GPNO. He alluded to zoning changes around the area, where appropriate, to allow for rental and affordable housing. He opined that the Subject Property is not considered to be appropriate for the proposed use in the updated Official Plan and the ZBL.
12Having considered the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Manzon and the evidence of Ms. Li, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBA”) does not conform with the GPNO as implemented through the City’s Official Plan and the ZBL which conform with the GPNO.
13The second issue identified by the Applicant/Appellant states;
Issue 2: Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, Policies 1.1.1 b), 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 a)?
Mr. Manzon stated that the referenced policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the PPS”) direct considerations for healthy, livable and safe communities; provision of a mix of housing; and an appropriate range and mix of housing options. Mr. Manzon opined that the PPS also directs that the Official Plan is the most important vehicle for implementing policies. Mr. Manzon stated that the City’s official plan pro-actively provides for policies which consistently follow direction of the PPS. Mr. Manzon opined that the Official Plan and the ZBL specify areas which are so designated and zoned in response to these PPS policies. He concluded that the requested ZBA is not necessary or appropriate for establishing consistency with the PPS which is well achieved by the Official Plan and the ZBL as continuously updated and revised.
14Ms. Li repeatedly and forcefully stated that her proposed ZBA is necessary for establishing or contributing towards consistency with the PPS.
15Based on the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Manzon and Ms. Li’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA is not consistent with PPS as it will not conform with the City’s in force and effect Official Plan flagged by the PPS as the most important vehicle for implementing PPS policies.
16Having considered the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Manzon and the evidence of Ms. Li, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA does not conform with the GPNO as implemented through the City’s Official Plan and the ZBL which conform with the GPNO.
17The third issue raised by the Applicant asks the following;
Issue 3: Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and does it conform with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario in regard to any applicable policies in them on:
a) renting housing?
b) affordable housing?
c) population growth and needs?
d) maintaining quality of life?
18Ms. Li repeatedly stated that since her proposal provides for affordable rental housing that it naturally is consistent with any time such is included in any policy documents like the GPNO and the PPS.
19Mr. Manzon opined that Ms. Li’s assertions and logic is flawed. He opined that neither the GPNO nor the PPS require that every form of housing shall be an option available in every property. Mr. Manzon emphasized the top-down land use planning policy regime in Ontario which directs for development of planning policies that suitably implement policies and such is done through Official Plan and the appropriate ZBL. He stated that if one were to accept the line of logic presented by Ms. Li then every property could be considered to provide any possible use resulting in utter chaos for appropriate and considered development of land use planning in the City.
20The Tribunal having considered the evidence of Mr. Manzon and Ms. Li, prefers the evidence of Mr. Manzon. The Tribunal finds that Ms. Li’s interpretation regarding implementation of PPS and GPNO policies is flawed and her request for the ZBA based on these flawed interpretations neither conforms to the GPNO nor is consistent with the PPS.
21Mr. Manzon provided further evidence on City identified issues listed below;
Issue 1: Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with policies 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014?
Issue 2: Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?
Issue 3: Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with policies 2.3.1(f), 2.3.1(g), 2.3.3(8), 2.3.3(9)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g), 2.3.3(10), 3.2.1(1) and 3.2.1(6) of the Official Plan for the City of Greater Sudbury?
Issue 4: Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario?
Issue 5: Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning?
22In providing opinion evidence on the City’s issues, Mr. Manzon provided more extensive policies analysis which related in large parts with the evidence in similar issues phrased by the Applicant/Appellant.
23Mr. Manzon’s evidence was unfettered when contested by Ms. Li through generic arguments made by Ms. Li when she stated that her proposal provides for affordable and rental choices for ensuring quality of life for those who need such housing. Ms. Li’s argument that mere occurrences of such words or phrases enable a land use planning justification for the requested ZBA is flawed. It fails to recognize the hierarchies of land use planning regime in the Province of Ontario, and it fails to recognize directions in policies which direct the development of official plans and zoning in planned Cities and communities thereof. The Tribunal, preferring the sustained opinion evidence of Mr. Manzon, finds in favour for the City for issues 1 through 4.
24In response to issue 5 Mr. Manzon opined as follows:
The proposal does not represent good land use planning based on the suitability of the site, the intensity of use including density, and the potential impacts of the proposed rear yard parking area. In general, the Application does not conform to the development standards applied to residential intensification under the Official Plan.
Infrastructure deficiencies include the lack of a centre-turn lane to accommodate vehicular access, no bicycle lanes and over-capacity in the storm sewer system. The proposal for a 12-room shared housing facility is viewed as a poor fit with the existing physical character of the area where the predominant land use is a single detached dwelling. The highest and best use is a single detached dwelling with an accessory secondary dwelling unit (since installed by the owner).
25Based on the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Manzon on City’s issue number 5, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA does not represent good land use planning.
ORDER
26The appeal by Mi Yuk Li is dismissed and the requested amendment to Zoning By-law No. 2010-100Z is refused.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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.