Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 08, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL171189
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Orangeville Highland Limited et al.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the Town of Orangeville to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: “Open Space”, ”Medium Density Residential”, “Open space Conservation”, “Open space Recreation”
Proposed Designated: Site specific- to be determined
Purpose: To permit redevelopment and intensification of the subject site for a residential community
Property Address/Description: Part of East Half Lot 3, Concession 2 WHS
Municipality: Town of Orangeville
Approval Authority File No.: OPZ 5/10
OMB Case No.: PL171189
OMB File No.: PL171189
OMB Case Name: Orangeville Highland Limited Et Al vs. Orangeville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Orangeville Highland Limited et al.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 22 - 90 - Refusal or neglect of the Town of Orangeville to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Development “D”
Proposed Zoning: Site specific – to be determined
Purpose: To permit redevelopment and intensification of the subject site for a residential community
Property Address/Description: Part of East Half Lot 3, Concession 2 WHS
Municipality: Town of Orangeville
Municipality File No.: OPZ 5/10
OMB Case No.: PL171189
OMB File No.: PL171190
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Orangeville Highland Limited et al.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Town of Orangeville to make a decision
Purpose: To permit redevelopment and intensification of the subject site for a residential community
Property Address/Description: Part of East Half Lot 3, Concession 2 WHS
Municipality: Town of Orangeville
Municipality File No.: S1/10
OMB Case No.: PL171189
OMB File No.: PL171191
Heard: May 19, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Orangeville Highland Limited et al. Scott Snider and Anna Toumanians
Town of Orangeville Andrew Biggart
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns the settlement of an appeal pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Orangeville Highlands Limited et al. (“Applicant”) in relation to the Town of Orangeville’s (“Town”) failure to make decisions regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBL”) and Plan of Subdivision approval. The applications relate to lands legally described as Part of Lot 3, Concession 2, WHS, Town of Orangeville.
2The subject property is located on the north side of Hansen Boulevard, west of highway 10 in the Town, in the County of Dufferin. The property is approximately 17.95 hectares (“ha”) and is currently vacant. It has a combined frontage of approximately 443 metres (“m”) on Hansen Boulevard and varying depths ranging from 353.2 m to 367.5 m.
3The northern limit of the property is bounded by the Town boundary between Orangeville and the Town of Mono and the lands north of the boundary consist of existing estate residential development within the Town of Mono. To the west of the subject property are two-storey single detached dwellings. To the east is a shopping centre, the Orangeville Mall. To the south is Hansen Boulevard and two-storey single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings.
4In addition to the Orangeville Mall, which includes a Metro Grocery Store and Shoppers Drug Mart, the property is located within walking distance of First Street, which is a north/south corridor containing a mix of retail, personal service, office, restaurant, institutional and cultural uses. The subject lands are located within close proximity to various schools (elementary and secondary), an arena, the YMCA, various parks and places of worship, as well as the Ontario Court of Justice and the County of Dufferin Paramedic Services.
5Hansen Boulevard and First Street are designated as Major Collector Roads in the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”) and can accommodate two lanes of traffic as well as bicycle and turning lanes. Hansen Boulevard includes bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the road. There are also trails along Hansen Boulevard and throughout the surrounding neighbourhood, including a trail through the natural heritage system within the subject property.
APPLICATION HISTORY
6The original applications were filed in June 2010 and a formal public meeting was held on March 7, 2011. In October 2017, a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision was submitted to the Town in response to comments received on the proposal. The Town failed to make a decision on the applications within the legislated timelines and the matters were appealed to the Tribunal. Further revisions were made to the proposal and on September 10, 2018, another formal public meeting was held.
7Thereafter more revisions took place, further informal meetings were held and, in late 2019 and early 2020, the Applicant and the Town participated in successful settlement discussions, which led to the submission of another revised Draft Plan of Subdivision.
8On May 25, 2020, Town Council was presented with a staff report summarizing the settlement. The settlement was endorsed subject to two additional matters to be dealt with through new Draft Plan Conditions.
PARTICIPANTS
9The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) in June 2018, at which time, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (“CVCA”) was granted party status1 and participant status was granted to 10 individuals. A case management conference (“CMC”) took place in February 2019 and four individuals were added to the list of participants. The Tribunal received written participant statements in advance of this settlement hearing from Angela Banks (Exhibit 2) and Dorothy Pedersen (Exhibit 4).
10Counsel for the Applicant and for the Town confirmed that although the Tribunal had granted participant status to Karen Morrison at one of the above hearing events, she had not been included on the list of participants. Ms. Morrison contacted the Tribunal in relation to this omission in advance of today’s settlement hearing and was advised to file a written request for participant status as well as her intended participant statement, which she did. Under the circumstances and with the consent of the parties, the Tribunal formally added Ms. Morrison to the list of participants and received her statement (Exhibit 3).
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
11The development proposal (“development”) currently before the Tribunal is for a Residential Plan of Subdivision (Exhibit 1, Tab F) consisting of an estimated 541 residential units in varying built forms with a proposed density of 89.1 units per ha. The development will be serviced using municipal water and sewer systems and includes: 93 townhouse units; two blocks of back-to-back townhouses, totalling 26 units; two blocks of stacked condominium townhouses, totalling 88 units; and two apartment blocks with a total of 334 apartment units divided amongst five buildings (two 5-storey buildings and three 6-storey buildings).
12The development also includes a 15.4 acre natural open space/conservation area containing wooded area and wetlands; 5.19 acres of open recreational space contained in two park areas (including one dog park); an approximately 3 acres stormwater management pond; and a walkway block at the north end of the property providing access to the open space conservation area.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
13The Tribunal heard contextual and land use planning evidence from Karen Bennett in support of a proposed implementing ZBL and Draft Plan of Subdivision with Conditions which would permit the development. Ms. Bennett is a registered professional planner with 22 years of experience and is a member of the Ontario Professional Planning Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners. She testified that she took carriage of this file in her capacity as a senior planner with Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. in May 2017. She further testified that since that time, she has been involved in all aspects of same, including presenting at a public meeting held on September 10, 2018 and at Town Council on May 25, 2020. The Tribunal qualified Ms. Bennett to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
OPA – Withdrawn
14Ms. Bennett explained that when the applications were originally filed in 2010, an OPA was required because the design layout included a park located on the east side of the property, which was inconsistent with the Town OP Land Use Schedule. Since then, the proposal has undergone a number of revisions and the park is now to be located on the west side of the property, which conforms with both the Land Use Schedule and OP policy directives.
15Counsel for the Town confirmed that an OPA is no longer required and the Tribunal’s attention was drawn to a Staff Report of May 25, 2020 (Exhibit 1, Tab I) confirming same. As such, the appeal in relation to the OPA was withdrawn at the hearing.
Proposed ZBL, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions
16The subject lands are currently zoned ‘D’ (Development Zone). Ms. Bennett explained this zoning is typically used as a ‘placeholder zone’ for lands that are targeted for future urban development.
17The proposed implementing ZBL would rezone the property from ‘D’ to:
‘OS2’ (Open Space Conservation and Storm Water Management), in relation to the approximately 15 acres of natural conservation/open space area which includes the woodlot and wetlands;
‘OS1’ (Open Space Recreation), in relation to the two proposed parks of approximately 5 acres; and
(site specific) ‘RM1’ (Multiple Residential Medium Density), in relation to the proposed residential development on the site.
The implementing ZBL would permit townhouse and stacked townhouse dwellings, (which are not currently recognized townhouse types in the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law) and establish a number of site specific exceptions to the parent ‘RM1’ zone applying performance standards relating to the proposed development (for example, minimum lot frontages and setbacks and maximum heights for the townhouses and apartment buildings).
18In addition to the foregoing, a holding provision is proposed, which can only be lifted upon confirmation of sufficient water supply and sewage treatment capacity to service the development. Based on Ms. Bennett’s review of the functional servicing report, she testified that the lands are serviceable, but noted the aforementioned holding provision represents an added degree of assurance in this regard.
19Ms. Bennett further testified that the Draft Plan of Subdivision includes a variety of Conditions relating to zoning; phasing; technical reporting (including engineering, transportation, landscaping and urban design); and satisfaction of external agencies, such as the CVCA. She drew the Tribunal’s attention to Conditions 55 and 56 and explained that they address the two new matters identified in the Town Council’s Resolution of May 25, 2020, as noted above at paragraph [8].
Applicable Legislation and Policies
20Ms. Bennett provided an Affidavit (Exhibit 1) which reviews a detailed planning analysis and rationale which formed the basis for her opinion that the proposed implementing ZBL, Draft Plan Approval and related Conditions have regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, as well as regard for the criteria for Plans of Subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“GP”), and conform to both the County of Dufferin OP and the Town OP. At the hearing, she provided a brief overview of the foregoing.
21With respect to matters of Provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Act, she noted the subject lands are currently identified for urban development within the Town and County OPs; the open space natural conservation area will preserve and protect existing ecological and natural heritage systems; Conditions 55 and 56 in the Draft Plan of Subdivision will achieve energy efficiency and reductions in potable water usage; and the design and location of the development will support both public and active transportation.
22Ms. Bennett also briefly reviewed criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, opining that the Plan of Subdivision and related Conditions demonstrate sufficient regard for same. The subject lands are intended for medium density residential growth at a range of 75 to 99 units per ha (as noted in the Town OP) and the development proposed will achieve a density of 89.1 units per ha. The open space natural conservation area will protect and preserve existing natural heritage features and there will be two park blocks conveyed for public purposes.
23With respect to the PPS, Ms. Bennett noted the development is to be located within a growth area identified with the Town and County OPs and will include a range and mix of built forms and housing options, as well as open space parks and a conservation area to protect the natural heritage features of the area. She also noted that she had reviewed stormwater management and hydrogeological analyses completed in relation to the proposal and was satisfied that these demonstrate consistency with PPS policies speaking to the protection of water, groundwater and water resource systems. As such, she opined that the proposed planning instruments and the development are consistent with the PPS.
24Ms. Bennett opined that, as the proposed development is to be located in a settlement area, will optimize the use of available infrastructure (including transit) and provide a range and mix of housing, it will contribute to the development of a complete community. As such, she concluded the proposal and the instruments before the Tribunal conform to the GP.
25In her opinion, the proposal and the planning instruments required to implement same also conform to both the County and the Town OPs. The development is to be located in an Urban Settlement Area identified in the County OP; will provide an adequate mix of land uses and housing types; and its proximity to the Orangeville Mall and the First Street corridor will provide residents with access to a range of services within a short walking distance. The Town OP includes a site-specific density policy in relation to the area (E8.66). It prescribes a minimum density of 75 and a maximum density of 99 units per net residential ha. Ms. Bennett reiterated the proposed development has a density of 89.1 units per ha, therefore meeting this OP policy directive. Ms. Bennett opined that the layout of the development, proposed setbacks and buffers achieves appropriate transition and compatibility with the surrounding area.
26Overall, Ms. Bennett’s professional planning opinion is that the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
Participant Statements
27Ms. Bennett advised the Tribunal that she had reviewed all three participant statements in advance of the hearing, which included concerns in relation to: a perceived lack of opportunity for public participation and engagement in this development process; greenhouse gas emissions; the density of the proposal and the potential for negative environmental, traffic and water runoff impacts; the need to consider a June 2020 CVCA Subwatershed study in relation to the proposed development; and a retaining wall to be constructed along the west side of the property.
28Ms. Bennett testified that there had been ample opportunity for public engagement through a number of formal and informal meetings and a great deal of public participation did occur, as detailed in her Affidavit under the heading Planning Process to Date (paragraphs 36-51).
29With respect to concerns about the proposed density and potential impacts of same, Ms. Bennett explained that the subject lands are in a Greenfield area designated for growth in the County and Town OPs and the proposed density of 89.1 units per ha is squarely in the middle of the minimum and maximum densities prescribed for these lands in the Town OP. She again opined that the natural environment including the woodlot and wetlands will be protected with the large planned open space/conservation block. In terms of traffic impacts, Ms. Bennett testified that traffic studies had been completed and concluded that the existing road network could meet future traffic needs. She noted that such studies were based upon traffic forecasts in relation to an earlier iteration of the proposal which included a higher density (623 residential units).
30Ms. Bennett briefly addressed concerns regarding climate and greenhouse gas emissions, noting the compact design of the proposed development, which is located on a bus route and within walking distance of a variety of retail and service locations. She discussed the opportunities for transit and active transportation on bicycle and walking trails in the area and opined that there would be less vehicular traffic and associated emissions. In addition, she highlighted Conditions 55 and 56, which promote water and energy conservation. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Bennett opined that climate and emission concerns in relation to the proposed development have been adequately addressed.
31She also discussed a retaining wall, which is proposed to be constructed along the west side of the property. She explained that the wall is required in order to provide extra support and prevent soil erosion as a result of a grade differential between the subject property and properties to the west. Based on her review of the functional servicing report, Ms. Bennett opined the retaining wall is appropriate for maintaining the stability of the lands and will prevent soil and debris from spilling down onto the site and eroding away the rear yards.
32With respect to groundwater, stormwater and the June 2020 CVCA study, Ms. Bennett reiterated that hydrogeological and stormwater analyses had been completed, which included consideration of the most significant storm events. She testified that the conclusions of same were that the stormwater management infrastructure proposed for this development can suitably accommodate water runoff, including during the most significant storms.
33Moreover, she highlighted a number of the Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions, including but not limited to: Conditions 14, 16, 18, 39, 42 and 44, explaining that both the Town and the CVCA must receive and be satisfied by a number of reports, including a stormwater management implementation, functional servicing and hydrogeology. She testified that the CVCA is in agreement that approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision should be granted and will be working with the developer toward the clearance of applicable Conditions.
34She opined that the proposed holding provision and the Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions are sufficient to satisfy the June 2020 CVCA Subwatershed Report and to address the participants’ concerns with respect to water and stormwater.
DECISION
35Based on the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence provided by Ms. Bennett, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed ZBL has regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and, pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act, that the ZBL and the proposed development it will permit, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the GP, the County OP, the Town OP and overall, represent good planning in the public interest.
36Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions have due regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act as well as the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the GP, the County OP and the Town OP and overall represent good planning in the public interest. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the Conditions are reasonable having regard to the nature of the proposed development.
37In reaching the decision to approve the ZBL and Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions, the Tribunal has considered the decisions of the Town Council, including the decision to approve the proposed settlement and the supporting material before it when such decisions were made.
38The Tribunal is also satisfied, on the basis of the testimony of Ms. Bennett, that the concerns raised by the various participants in this matter have been considered and are adequately addressed through specific Conditions and the holding provision proposed.
ORDER
39The Tribunal Orders that:
The appeal filed by Orangeville Highlands et al. pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act is withdrawn.
Town of Orangeville Zoning By-law No. 22-90 is amended in accordance with Schedule A attached hereto.
The draft Plan of Subdivision by Orangeville Highlands et al. is approved in accordance with Schedule B attached hereto and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Schedule C. Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) is to be given by the Town of Orangeville.
The Schedules attached to this Order shall form part of this Order.
The Tribunal may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order.
“S. Braun”
S. BRAUN
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.
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C