Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 17, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL171423

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Charlieville Development Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of Town of Aurora to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Existing employment-brownfield Industrial, Environmental Protection and Private Parkland

Proposed Designated: Special site specific to permit a residential land use within the existing designations

Purpose: To permit residential development

Property Address/Description: 45 Tyler Street

Municipality: Town of Aurora

Approval Authority File No.: OPA 2015-02

OLT Case No.: PL171423

OLT File No.: PL171423

OLT Case Name: Charlieville Development Limited v. Aurora (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Charlieville Development Limited

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 6000-78 Refusal or neglect of Town of Aurora to make a decision

Existing Zoning: General Employment E2 Zone) and Environmental protection (EP) Zone

Proposed Zoning: Residential (R8-E) R8 Exception and Environmental protection (EP) Zone

Purpose: To permit residential development

Property Address/Description: 45 Tyler Street

Municipality: Town of Aurora

Municipality File No.: ZBA-2015-06

OLT Case No.: PL171423

OLT File No.: PL171424

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Charlieville Development Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of Town of Aurora to make a decision

Purpose: To permit 70 three storey townhouses

Property Address/Description: 45 Tyler Street

Municipality: Town of Aurora

Municipality File No.: SUB-2015-03

OLT Case No.: PL171423

OLT File No.: PL171425

Heard: October 19, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Charlieville Development Limited	Ira Kagan and Kristie Jennings
Town of Aurora	Patricia De Sario
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority	Carly Emmett (student-at-law)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON OCTOBER 19, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1Charlieville Developments Limited (“Appellant”) filed appeals arising from the failure of the Town of Aurora (“Town”) to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and approval of a draft plan of subdivision regarding a proposed townhouse development at 45 Tyler Street (“subject property”). The subject property is the site of a former tannery, which has been demolished.

2The subject property is presently designated as Existing Employment-Brownfield Industrial, Private Parkland, Environmental Protection, and Stable Neighbourhoods in the Town’s Official Plan. The Appellant’s proposed official plan amendment would designate the central portion of the subject property as Stable Neighbourhood and the remaining lands as Environmental Protection.

3The subject property is presently zoned as General Employment (E2) and Environmental Protection (EP) under the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 6000-17. The Appellant’s proposed zoning for the development is Townhouse Dwelling Residential with Exception (R8-E) and Environmental Protection zone (EP).

4On October 14, 2021, the Tribunal was informed by the Parties that they had reached a proposed settlement of the appeals.

5On October 19, 2021, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing to address the proposed settlement.

ISSUES

6On an official plan amendment appeal under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, the issues that the Tribunal must determine are whether the proposed amendment:

a) is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));

b) conforms with applicable provincial plans (in the present case, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”) and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan);

c) conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the Region of York (“Region”) Official Plan); and,

d) represents good planning.

The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and also have regard to the decision of Town Council and the information considered by it, as required by s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

7The statutory requirements that the Tribunal must consider when making a decision on a zoning by-law amendment appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act are whether the proposed amendment:

a) is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (again, in this case, the PPS);

b) conforms with applicable provincial plans (again, the Growth Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan);

c) conforms with applicable official plans (in the present case, the Region’s Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan); and,

d) represents good planning.

Also, the Tribunal again must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and must have regard to the decision of City Council and the information considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

8On a draft plan of subdivision appeal under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must:

a) determine whether the proposed draft plan is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (in this case, the PPS));

b) determine whether the proposed draft plan conforms with applicable provincial plans (in the present case, the Growth Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan);

c) have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act;

d) determine whether the proposed conditions of draft plan approval are reasonable as required under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act; and,

e) determine whether the proposed draft plan represents good planning.

The Tribunal again must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and also have regard to the decision of Town Council and the information considered by it, as required by s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

The Parties’ Evidence and Submissions

9Prior to the settlement hearing, the Appellant filed an affidavit sworn by Nick Pileggi on October 17, 2021. He is a land use planner retained by the Appellant. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. He also provided oral testimony at the settlement hearing.

10Mr. Pileggi stated that the subject property is 2.95 hectares in size. He said the Appellant proposes to develop 70 townhouse units on the subject property. He said the proposed townhouses would be three storeys in height. Mr. Pileggi stated that the proposed development would provide two parking spaces for each residential unit plus 25 visitor parking spaces.

11Regarding consistency with the PPS, Mr. Pileggi stated that the subject property is within a settlement area and the proposed instruments would facilitate efficient development providing a range and mix of housing types and densities that meet current and future needs. He said they would facilitate cost-effective development, minimize servicing costs, efficiently use existing infrastructure, and provide for appropriate intensification and redevelopment. He said they support transit use and active transportation. He opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS.

12Regarding conformity with the Growth Plan, Mr. Pileggi stated that the subject property is located within the delineated built boundary and the required infrastructure for the proposed development exists, including stormwater management infrastructure. He said the proposed instruments would facilitate the provision of a diverse range and mix of housing options and compact built form and would assist the Region and the Town in meeting their intensification targets. He opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Growth Plan.

13Regarding conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Mr. Pileggi stated that the Appellant prepared comprehensive stormwater management, sewage treatment, phosphorus retention, water quality, natural heritage, and floodplain studies to the satisfaction of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Town. He said landscaping, habitat restoration and buffering requirements have been addressed. He opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

14Regarding conformity with the Region’s Official Plan, Mr. Pileggi stated that the subject property is located within the Urban Area and Regional Greenlands System under the Region’s Official Plan. He said the Urban Area designation permits a range of uses, including residential, and the Regional Greenlands Systems designation is intended to identify, protect and enhance greenlands. He said the Region’s Official Plan encourages development in the Urban Area through intensification, development that promotes walking, cycling and the use of public transit, and the redevelopment of brownfield sites, which he stated the proposed instruments would facilitate. He reiterated that the proposed instruments would facilitate development that would assist the Region in achieving its intensification targets, promote compact form, and provide a range of housing options. He opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Region’s Official Plan.

15Regarding conformity with the Town’s Official Plan, Mr. Pileggi stated that the proposed development would provide housing forms and heights that are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. He stated that the proposed boundaries for the Environmental Designation are appropriate and that the Appellant had an environmental impact study completed. He stated that the proposed development fits in with the surrounding form and character of the neighbourhood, represents compatible development with the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of siting, massing, height and scale, and meets the intent of the Official Plan’s development policies for Stable Neighbourhoods. He reiterated that the proposed instruments would facilitate development that assists the Town in meeting its intensification targets and he stated that they would facilitate the re-use of a brownfield site. He opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Town’s Official Plan.

16Regarding the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, Mr. Pileggi stated that the proposed draft plan of subdivision is not premature and conforms with the applicable official plans. He opined that the subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development, noting that a risk management plan is in place for the subject property to address contamination issues associated with the former tannery and that the subject property has been determined to be suitable for residential use. Regarding the conservation of natural resources and flood control, he stated that a floodplain analysis was conducted which found that the proposed development will improve nearby flood prone areas. He said there are available schools in the area.

17Regarding the proposed conditions of draft plan approval, Mr. Pileggi stated that they are reasonable. He stated that they address numerous issue, including urban design, natural heritage/environmental impact, parks/open space, landscape works, vegetation management, noise impact, municipal services/infrastructure, utilities, transportation, environmental clearances, and fire and building requirements.

FINDINGS

18Based on Mr. Pileggi’s uncontradicted opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and draft plan of subdivision are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, conform with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, conform with the Region’s Official Plan, and constitute good planning. It also finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision conform with the Town’s Official Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act regarding the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision. It also finds that the proposed conditions of draft Plan Approval are reasonable. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the decisions of Town Council and the information that Council had before it.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed.

20The Tribunal orders that the Town’s Official Plan is amended as set out in Schedule 1 attached to this Order and Decision.

21The Tribunal orders that the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 6000-17 is amended as set out in Schedule 2 attached to this Order and Decision.

22The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign numbers to the Zoning By-law Amendment for record keeping purposes.

23The Tribunal approves the draft plan of subdivision as set out in Schedule 3 attached to this Order and Decision and the conditions of draft plan approval set out in Schedule 4 attached to this Order and Decision.

24The Tribunal orders that pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Aurora shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.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.

PL171423 – Schedule 1

PL171423 – Schedule 2

PL171423 – Schedule 3

PL171423 – Schedule 4