Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 07, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200324

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: J.D. Turnbull Development Inc.

Appellant: Ruby Puni

Appellant: Turnbull School Ltd.

Subject: By-law No. 2020-226

Municipality: City of Ottawa

OLT Case No.: PL200324

OLT File No.: PL200324

OLT Case Name: Carlington Community Association v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: September 14-24, 2021 via video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Representative*

City of Ottawa Greg Meeds

Prestige Design & Construction (Fisher) Ltd. Michael S. Polowin and Carolina Campos

Turnbull School Ltd.; and J.D. Turnbull Development Inc. Emma Blanchard and Laura Robinson

Ruby Puni Matthew Lakatos-Hayward (Brittni Tee -Articling student)

DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was a ten days hearing conducted by video. This matter addresses appeals by multiple parties under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (“PA”).

2The Applicant (Prestige Design & Construction (Fisher) Ltd.) owns the lands known municipally as 1110 Fisher Avenue (“Subject Property”), in the City of Ottawa (“City”) and in May 2019, filed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) application, seeking to rezone the Subject Property from Residential Third Density, Subzone A (R3A), Exception 2229, to Residential Fifth Density Subzone B (R5B), with a height regulation of 31 metres. This rezoning would permit a nine-storey, mid-rise residential apartment building with a total of 62 units. A total of 65 parking spaces are proposed to be provided in the development through an underground parking garage and one loading and delivery space is proposed in front of the building.

3The application also sought site specific reductions to the minimum interior side yard setbacks and minimum rear yard setbacks otherwise required in an R5B zone, as follows:

Setback from north lot line – Reduced from 7.5m to 1.5m for the ground floor (maintained at 7.5m for upper floors);

Setback from south lot line – Reduced from 6m to 1.5m beyond 21m of front lot line (maintained at 1.5m, as permitted, within 21m of front lot line);

Rear yard setback – Reduced from 7.5m to 6.44m.

4The City’s Planning Committee recommended approval, and City Council subsequently enacted Zoning By-law No. 2020-226 (“ZBLA”).

5Ruby Puni (“Puni”) and J.D. Turnbull Development Inc. and Turnbull School Ltd. (“Turnbulls”), have appealed this enactment.

WITNESSES

6The Turnbulls presented Nadia De Santi (Exhibit 4 and 5) Jim Gough (Exhibit 5), Andrew Boyd (Exhibit 5) and Mary Ann Turnbull as witnesses. The Tribunal qualified Ms. De Santi to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Gough was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in transportation engineering. Mr. Boyd was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of urban forestry. Ms. Turnbull provided evidence as a lay witness.

7Sean Galbraith (Exhibit 9) was presented by Appellant Puni and qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

8The City presented two witnesses. Kelby Lodoen Unseth (Exhibit 1) was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mark Richardson (Exhibit 6) presented by the City was qualified to present expert opinion evidence in the area of urban forestry.

9The Applicant presented Miguel Tremblay (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3), Tino Tolot (Exhibit 6), Astrid Neilson (Exhibit 1) and Arthur Gordon (Exhibit 1). Mr. Tremblay was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Tolot provided evidence as an architect. Ms. Neilson was qualified to provide evidence in the area of urban forestry. Ms. Richardson was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence as a transportation engineer with specialization in traffic engineering.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10At the outset, the parties on consent informed the Tribunal that issues 7 and 8 as in the Issues List of the Procedural Order should be struck and the Tribunal so allowed. The issues that were struck from the Issues List stated the following;

7. Does the OP require investigation of the potential impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage attributes of the Experimental Farm?

8. Does the proposed bylaw amendment permit a development that would have undue adverse impacts on the cultural heritage attributes of the Experimental Farm?

11In this decision, the Tribunal focusses on four themes of significant contest between experts and other testimony. These;

1. Shadows;

2. Traffic;

3. Forestry; and

4. Land use planning and policies

Shadows

12Shadow studies were included as part of the planning justification material files with the City. Mr. Tremblay opined that these studies showed transitory and minor impacts on neighbouring properties. Counsel for Puni in cross examination inquired if the shadow studies had regard for the City’s guidelines in the conduct of such studies. Mr. Trembley replied that these studies were conducted, and the City staff duly received and accepted these. Mr. Tolot provided further updates to show that the narrow profile of the core mid-rise building would further minimize shadow impacts in size and duration.

13Mr. Lodoen Unseth was questioned by the counsel for Puni regarding greater than two hours of shadow occurring on Puni property. Mr. Lodoen Unseth replied that the shadow over the whole property did not prevail for the two hours and that the requirement relates to the property as a whole and not just parts of the same. He opined that the shadows do not create a significant negative impact.

14Ms. Turnbull in her testimony as a lay person stated the importance of open air and sunshine for the students at Turnbull School and especially the kinder play area adjoining the Subject Property. She admitted under cross-examination that her hedge trees create a significant amount of shadows in the area of young student’s playground during the morning and adjacent structures create other shadows at different times of the day.

15The Tribunal finds based on the testimony of witnesses that while the shadows will form and traverse the adjoining properties, the impact of the proposed development and the shadows that it may create, does not rise to the level of significant adverse impacts or violate any City policy directives in duration and coverage.

Traffic

16Mr. Gough stated that Fisher Avenue around the proposed development is identified in City planning instruments as a Transit Priority Corridor with “Isolated Measures” where the Isolated Measures may include transit signal priority and/or queue jump lanes at select intersections. Mr. Gordon agreed such also to be the case as it is so stated in the City’s official transit plans.

17Mr. Gough stated that he was generally in agreement with the methodology and traffic characterization postulated by Mr. Gordon as it relates to the possibility of Fisher Avenue as a two-lane arterial roadway. Mr. Gough also stated that the amount of possible traffic generated by the proposed development was also appropriately quantified by Mr. Gordon.

18Mr. Gough through field observation stated that there were issues of a local nature in the vicinity of the school and the proposed development. Mr. Gough stated that he observed during a site visit lasting about two hours that cycling traffic was not following normal directional flows and was moving in front of the school and the proposed development in opposing direction. Based on the specific day of observation, Mr. Gough stated that the cycling traffic was more significant (7 cyclists going opposite to traffic while 5 cyclists moved in the direction of traffic flow) and would be a source of possible safety issues as it relates to traffic leaving or returning to the proposed development. He stated that he however has not done a safety audit to account for all traffic types and local traffic nuances.

19Mr. Gordon responded to cycling traffic that it is not possible to do traffic engineering whereby the people will break the traffic laws. In response to a possible OCTranspo stop towards the North at Trent Street next to the development and two mature trees in front of the proposed development which Mr. Gough stated could create safety issues due to sight lines for people egressing from the proposed development; Mr. Gordon stated that the City’s direction is to not create any layaway lanes for transit buses and there will not be people passing around a bus stopped to pick up or drop off bus riders. Mr. Gordon also stated that the mature trees will be in the area that the Applicant plans to dedicate to the City along Fisher Avenue for possible improvements to Fisher Avenue.

20Mr. Gough opined that the traffic along Fisher Avenue during the peak hours would not allow for suitable gaps or allow creation of courtesy gaps for cars leaving or entering the proposed developments. Mr. Gordon stated that the student drop-off and pick up vehicular traffic will indirectly support creation of more courtesy gaps as the school traffic will be turning in or leaving from school entrances. Mr. Gordon also stated and showed through computer modelling how the left turn signalized turn lane, the school traffic and the signalized intersections to the east and west of the proposed development will also contribute towards efficient and safe ingressing and egressing from the proposed development.

21Mr. Gough also opined that there is a potential for the residents to use Turnbull school front driveway for making turns, for illegal parking, and to otherwise contribute to possible safety issues. Mr. Gordon stated that he has evaluated the possible benefits of anyone trying to use the school internal roadway and accesses to expedite their turns to and from Fisher Avenue. Mr. Gordon opined that his assessment and modelling shows that anyone attempting to do so would spend more time as opposed to not using the school access to make turns into or out of Fisher Avenue.

22The Appellant’s witnesses, including Ms. De Santi, Ms. Turnbull and Mr. Gough, agreed that the school tries to manage significant traffic during the morning student drop-off and the afternoon student pick-up times through staggering of times, and the use of different traffic pickup and drop-off areas for various ages of students. Ms. Turnbull stated that the traffic can be congested in the internal roadway during such times. Mr. Gordon opined that in reflection, the real possible traffic issue in this area is the school itself versus possibly very low volumes of traffic generated by the residents of the proposed development.

23The parties established Issue #5 specifically related to traffic and it states;

5. Does the proposed bylaw amendment permit a development that would have an undue adverse impact on the transportation network, including the users of this network, in the surrounding area?

24Mr. Gough opined that the development would create undue impact on the users of the network including possible interactions between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Mr. Gough further opined that in the absence of any plans for improvements to or upgrades of Fisher Avenue, this situation will not mitigate over time.

25Mr. Gordon opined that the real issue of traffic modelling and traffic interactions is the traffic related to school activities itself. He added that the proposed development will create a much smaller level of traffic and the natural feature of traffic flows, the signalized intersections on either side of the proposed development and the capacity available on Fisher Avenue will safely and adequately handle the possible traffic generated by the proposed development without any undue negative impacts.

26Having considered the evidence on file and the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the evidence presented by Mr. Gordon was sustained and the challenging opinions of the appellant’s witnesses could not establish undue negative impacts due to the proposed development.

FORESTRY

27The contested evidence in forestry arises out of the following issue in the issues list;

6. Does the proposed bylaw amendment permit a development that would threaten the viability of mature trees on adjoining properties?

It is noted that the Applicant objected to the inclusion of this issue on the basis that this was more appropriately addressed at the site plan control time where such analysis and approval is mandatory.

28Mr. Boyd, called by the Turnbulls stated that there was potential significant impact on fifty-five eastern white cedar hedge trees planted at the Turnbulls school which separate the school property and young children’s playground from the proposed property line. Mr. Boyd stated that the impact becomes more severe due to the closeness to the property line of the proposed excavation for the underground garage in the development. He opined that the hedging trees support each other in pairing and the canopies of adjacent trees form a support and protection complex. Mr. Boyd opined that there is a possibility of two sources of damage to these trees. One being that the underground excavation could impinge on the critical rooting zone, and the other would be any damage to the above ground growth of the trees that may need to be trimmed or otherwise disturbed due to the planned development.

29Mr. Boyd stated that there was also a possibility of damage to trees on Turnbulls property from wind tunneling as well as excess heat radiation emanating from the proposed structures. Under cross-examination Mr. Boyd admitted that he had no data or modelling or the expertise to create such models for estimating or establishing the degree of any damage from the wind and heat factors.

30Mr. Boyd in further testimony reviewed that other trees are also impacted when the formula for the critical rooting zone being ten times the diameter of the stem of a tree is applied as stipulated in the tree preservation associated City By-law No. 2021-01.

31Ms. Turnbull, as part of her evidence, also identified the necessity of preserving this hedge as a way of ensuring privacy and visual security for the younger children enjoying the playground. Ms. Turnbull could not provide any justification as to the fears of visual interference when presented with considerations and when asked about many a school having chain link fences which separate public sidewalks from children’s playgrounds.

32Ms. Neilson provided results of her field work and assessment of all trees that border the subject property including the Hydro corridor. Ms. Neilson stated that there is an extended setback of one metre planned for part of the excavation of the garage versus the original plans. She stated that this was reviewed with City staff and came as part of the consultative process that the Applicant engaged in even though it is not requisite at zoning approval stage. Mr. Richardson appearing for the City echoed and complimented the proactive and positive approach taken by the Applicant.

33Ms. Neilson agreed that there will be some possible damage to some trees, and some trees specifically in poor shape in the Hydro easement may require removal. Mr. Richardson opined that the City takes a balanced approach in such developments. He stated that preservation is preferred where feasible, replanting complements and can be used to mitigate tree loss. Mr. Richardson emphasized that when it comes to public safety, tree removal is carried out in favour of protecting people. Ms. Neilson and Mr. Richardson addressed inquiries by Puni directly on this aspect of safety and removal of trees when they were asked about the removal of trees and significance of the same from the City’s tree and forestry protection policies. Mr. Richardson, based on his professional experience as a key person at the City who reviews tree preservation aspects of developments, opined that all of Ottawa is fortunate to be well forested but conversely there simply cannot be any possible development in the City if one were to propose that no trees be damaged to some level and no trees be removed. He reiterated that it is a balancing act that requires preservation, mitigation when possible and replenishing as and where appropriate to counter any tree losses.

34Mr. Richardson and Ms. Neilson reiterated that the site plan approval requirements vis-a-vis City’s tree preservation by-law are a gating factor to receive site plan approvals. Mr. Richardson emphasized that he reviewed the proactive work carried out by the Applicant and was in principle supportive of the proposed tree preservation and management plans espoused by the Applicant even though the gating sign-off and his final evaluation will proceed at the site plan approval time.

35The Tribunal having considered the evidence from all witnesses finds that in reference to issue number six; the Applicant has met the City’s expectations and has pro-actively and positively addressed viability and tried to enhance the same through changes to its original plans; has done appropriate safety assessment and has addressed minimal removals of trees in bad health or those that would require removal.

LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICIES

36The evidence in this area was presented in the context of five issues on the issues list. The evidence was headed by each of the planners engaged by the Applicant, the Appellants Puni and Turnbulls.

37The first issue is focussed on assessing consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the “PPS”). It is stated as follows;

1. Is the proposed bylaw amendment consistent with the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement?

38Ms. De Santi as called by the Turnbulls opined that the proposed development violates policy 1.1.3.3 of the PPS which calls for determination of appropriate location and the recognition of existing building stock. She added that intensification while encouraged requires many considerations. Ms. De Santi also reviewed policy 1.1.1.c which speaks to healthy, liveable and safe communities. She opined that based on the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Gough, there are identified risks and safety hazards related to traffic. She thus concluded that the proposal is inconsistent with the PPS.

39Mr. Galbraith called by Puni reviewed policies 1.1.1.c; 1.1.1.b; 1.2.4; and 1.1.3.4 and opined that the site does not satisfy the location criteria in the policies. Mr. Galbraith also stated that there were possible safety issues due to a narrow road with mix of traffic like pedestrian, cycling, public transit and other vehicular traffic.

40Mr. Tremblay disagreed with the opinions and conclusions presented by Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith. Mr. Tremblay staged the PPS in the context of the Provincial Interest as per s. 2 of the Act and the enabling of the PPS to provide further policy direction. Mr. Tremblay referring to the policies discussed by the opposing planning opinions that not only does the proposal respect the neighbouring building stock it has very desirable attributes called for in the PPS. He emphasized how the development will use existing municipal infrastructure, be adjacent to a transit stop, make efficient use of the land through compact built form and in a designated growth area. Mr. Tremblay adopting the analysis and recommendation of Mr. Gordon’s traffic evaluation and related safety concerns, opined that concerns raised by Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith regarding safety hazards and issues were not supported in strong evidence presented by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Tremblay concluded that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.

41The Tribunal finds the evidence of Mr. Tremblay more compelling in its greater and wholesome consideration of the PPS. The Tribunal also accepts that the safety and hazard concerns repeated by Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith have been successfully analyzed and discounted by Mr. Gordon as already determined in this decision. The Tribunal thus finds that the proposal is consistent with the PPS and the issue has been adequately and positively addressed by the Applicant.

42Issues 2, 3 and 4 elicit as follows and are focussed on determination of conformity with the Ottawa Official Plan (the “Plan”);

2. Does the proposed bylaw amendment conform with the strategic directions set out in section 2.2.2 of the City of Ottawa Official Plan (the “OP”), including in respect of intensification in the General Urban Area?

3. Does the proposed bylaw amendment conform with the policies in respect of development in the General Urban Area set out in section 3.6.1 of the OP, including in respect of building height, building form, density and orientation, compatibility with the existing context and planned function of the area, and complementing the existing pattern and scale of development and planned function of the area?

4. Does the proposed bylaw amendment permit a development that conforms with the compatibility criteria in the OP set out in sections 2.5.1 and 4.11?

43It was agreed to by all planners that there is no applicable Community Design Plan, Secondary Plan, or other Council-approved planning direction for the Carlington community and as such the planned function of the area is established through the Zoning By-law.

44Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith acknowledged that the subject property is in a settlement area where growth and development are directed, and efficient uses of land and infrastructure is required. However, they opined that three aspects need to be considered in particular. These were stated as proximity to transit; planned function for the area and character of the surrounding community. All experts agreed that there was no specified planned function stipulated by the City specific to Carlington community area and there were no area specific or secondary plans established for this community area.

45The planners disagreed in particular as to what defines the Carlington community and the character of the area. Ms. De Santi suggested greater emphasis on the low-rise school to the south of the subject site and primarily one or two storey residential dwelling to the north and west of the subject site. Mr. Galbraith and Ms. De Santi were reluctant to consider the apartment building immediately to the south of the Turnbull school and de-emphasized their importance in consideration of immediate character area. Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith suggested that the subject site is only suitable for a low-rise development and referred to the already in place approval for the development of low-rise development at the subject site. Mr. Tremblay emphasized that directly south of the subject lands is an area characterized by taller buildings including 1140 Fisher Avenue with two (2) 22-storey high-rise apartment buildings, and at 1170 Fisher Avenue, a 9-storey mid-rise apartment building. Mr. Tremblay added that these lands, although abutting the easternmost edge of the Carlington Community, have a greater synergy and relationship with the high-rise node fronting onto Fisher Avenue. Mr. Tremblay opined that the subject site, the Turnbull school and the adjacent apartment buildings contribute towards the definition of immediate context area. Mr. Tremblay further opined that the proposed mid-rise development fits in with the immediate neighbourhood context and is appropriate in all forms of considerations for intensification, transitions and community character surrounding the subject site. Mr. Tremblay opined that within policy 3 of Section 3.6.1, the official plan directs that greater heights are allowed if a Secondary plan or a Zoning By-law permits as long as it meets policy 3 a) or 3 b) and within 3 a) to meet either i) or ii) as stated in the excerpted policy below;

a. Front an Arterial Road on Schedule E or F of this Plan and which are:

i. Within 800 metres walking distance of a Rapid Transit Station on Schedule D of this Plan, or

ii. On a Transit Priority Corridor on Schedule D of this Plan. For the purposes of this policy only, the “Transit Street” defined in the Riverside South Community Design Plan is considered an Arterial Road;

b. are in an area characterised by taller buildings or sites zoned for taller buildings.

The Tribunal accepts the evidence and opinion of Mr. Tremblay in this regard which specifically addresses issue #3 and that taller buildings are allowed for the subject site and fit-in in consideration of the policies identified above. The Tribunal notes that the existing of high-rise and mid-rise buildings adjacent to and south of Turnbull school cannot be simply wished away out of an immediate context area as stipulated by or argued by Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith.

46Section 2.2.2 of the Plan addresses residential intensification. Mr. Tremblay stated that the Plan directs intensification to meet Urban Design and compatibility provisions in sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Plan. Mr. Tremblay opined that the proposed development represents residential intensification and infill development. Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith did not dispute that the proposed development can be considered infill development. They however opined that the level of intensification is inappropriate for the subject site to be developed as a mid-rise development.

47As directed by section 2.2.2 consideration is to be had for section 4.11 regarding compatibility criteria for intensification, Mr. Tremblay stated that the proposed development has addressed specific compatibility criteria which include traffic, vehicular access, parking, amenity areas, loading areas, lighting, noise, air quality and sunlight. Mr. Tremblay referred to the opinions of experts in specific areas called by the Applicant in Mr. Gordon for traffic, Ms. Neilson for forestry and Mr. Tolot for architecture. Based on their testimony Mr. Tremblay opined that the proposal suitably meets all of the required compatibility criteria.

48Mr. Lodoen Unseth representing the City opined that the site is located on the periphery of the Carlington neighbourhood fronting an arterial street. The proposal provides a transition from the taller residential towers south of the site toward the low-rise neighbourhood to the north. The mechanical ventilation equipment will be enclosed to mitigate the noise created from its operation. The proposed parking exceeds the minimum requirement as outlined in the zoning bylaw, and a shadow impact assessment was completed to ensure single properties are not adversely impacted. Mr. Lodoen Unseth further opined that the proposed development provides a transition from the high-rise buildings to the south towards the low-rise residential neighborhood to the north. The design is generally sensitive to adjacent low-rise dwellings and features a stepped back envelope on its north face to reduce the impacts of a taller building on the existing dwellings. Mr. Lodoen Unseth succinctly states as follows in his witness statement;

60. Referencing Issue 2, Section 2.2.2 outlines what residential intensification is, such as the creation of new units or uses on previously developed land. The section outlines targeted minimum densities for specific locations as outlined in Figure 2.3, however it is further noted under 2.2.2.8 intensification may be applied for “land designated on Schedule ‘B’ as Mixed Use Centre, Town Centre, Traditional Mainstreet and Arterial Mainstreet, but not addressed in Figure 2.3.” Further, section 2.2.2.11 states that the distribution of building heights will be determined by the design compatibility of the development with the surrounding existing context with building clustered with other buildings of similar height.

61. Section 2.2.2.22 also states that intensification may occur outside of target areas, within the urban boundary, including areas designated General Urban Area, stating: “The City will promote opportunities for intensification in areas determined by the policies in Section 3.6.1.”

49Ms. Turnbull raised her apprehension for possible overlook of the younger kids’ playground from unit balconies. She stated this as an area of possible safety for such children. When cross examined by the Applicant’s counsel she acknowledged that she was not an expert in this area. The Applicants’ counsel also strongly objected to the assertions of Ms. Turnbull in this regard and submitted that her statements were potentially libelous accusations regarding future residents and their occupancy and use of their dwellings at the proposed development.

50The Tribunal notes that areas of traffic, shadows, and forestry have already been determined in this decision. Amalgamating those findings with the evidence of all witnesses the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s proposal conforms with the Plan inclusive of satisfactorily showing conformance with the Plan related to issues 2, 3 and 4.

51Issue 9 is for the determination of overall soundness of the proposed development and is as follows:

9. Does the proposed bylaw amendment represent appropriate and good land use planning?

52Ms. De Santi and Mr. Galbraith opined that the proposal does not represent appropriate and good land use planning. In making this opinion, the planners depend heavily on their concerns arising out of their and the other Appellant(s) witnesses’ evidence regarding the issues 1 through 6. The Tribunal notes that its findings already address that the Applicant and the City has suitably and successfully provided evidence that has allowed the Tribunal to make finding in their favour and the proposed development. The Tribunal further notes that the City witnesses provided substantive positive feedback regarding the Applicant’s co-operation to modify their proposal in proposed height limit, the number of units to be developed, the dedication of development strip along Fisher Avenue for possible improvements to Fisher Avenue and the extra excavation setbacks to part of the underground garage excavation envelope on the westerly boundary.

53Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Lodoen Unseth opine that the proposal represents appropriate and good land use planning. Having considered the totality of evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the proposal suitably supports appropriate and good land use planning.

CONCLUSION

54In order for the Tribunal to make a determination regarding the ZBA and allow the appeal(s), one or more of the following statutory tests must provide a negative result;

1. Does the ZBA have regard for the provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act;

2. Is the ZBA consistent with the PPS;

3. Does the ZBA conform to the City of Ottawa Official Plan; and

4. Does the ZBA represent good land use planning.

55Based on the findings in this decision related to issues before it and the supplemental supportive analysis provided by the Applicant and the City, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA has regard for the provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the City OP and represents good land use planning.

56The Tribunal concludes that the Turnbulls and Puni have not successfully sustained any of the issues for the Tribunal to find in their favour.

ORDER

57The Tribunal orders that the appeals are dismissed.

“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.