Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL200659
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 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2678752 Ontario Corporation Subject: Minor Variance Variance from By-law No.: 150-85 Property Address/Description: 16-22 George Street Municipality: City of Cambridge Municipal File No.: A25/20 LPAT Case No.: PL200659 LPAT File No.: PL200659 LPAT Case Name: 2678752 Ontario Corporation v. Cambridge (City)
Heard: June 15, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 2678752 Ontario Corporation (“Applicant”) | J. Meader |
| City of Cambridge (“City”) | B. Duxbury |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR AND K.R. ANDREWS ON JUNE 15, 2012 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant had made a minor variance application to the City of Cambridge (“City”) seeking approval to build a 42 unit apartment building with 5 residential storeys and an additional (street) level with some commercial space.
2As the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) originally deferred the matter, the Applicant modified the development proposal to inter alia reduce the height, increase the front yard setback, and reduce the number of residential units to 41.
3Notwithstanding the amendments, the Committee denied the application and the Applicant appealed.
4In the lead-up to the hearing, the Applicant again revised its development proposal: further reducing the height and the number of units, such that the revised application was 4 residential storeys, with a basement area for parking and commercial space, and 38 residential units.
5This revision lead to a settlement with the City.
6At the hearing, the Tribunal heard only uncontested expert land use planning evidence from the Applicant’s planner.
7The Tribunal gave an oral decision allowing the appeal in part, approving the revised minor variance application with conditions, all for the reasons set out below.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
8The appeal concerns the lands known municipally as 16, 20-22 George Street North (“Subject Lands”).
9The Subject Lands front onto both George Street North and Crescent Place (and constitute a through lot). They are located within the Galt Core Area. The existing buildings in the area are about 2-3 storeys in height, and include a mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses.
10The Subject Lands contained three single detached dwelling which were proposed for demolition.
11The Subject Lands are designated in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan as being within the Built-Up Area, and in a location where the Region has proposed (but not yet adopted or approved) a Major Transit Station Area.
12The Subject Lands are designated in the Cambridge Official Plan as Galt City Centre-Community Core Area and located within a Regeneration Area. Residential intensification and multi-unit residential development is encouraged in Community Core Areas and Regeneration Areas and such areas are intended to attract a significant portion of future population and employment.
13The City’s Zoning By-law zones the Subject Lands as C1RM1 which is a “compound” zoning that allows commercial and residential uses, including apartments containing more than 4 units.
14The revised application pared the requested variances to:
a. 5 metre (“m”) interior side yard setback for the 4th residential storey whereas 6 m is required; and
b. 1.8 m front yard setback for the residential portion of the proposed building whereas 4.5 m is required for the residential portion.
HEARING
15As the application had been amended, the parties were canvassed as to whether pursuant to s. 45 (18.1) of the Planning Act (“PA”) further notice was required. As the number of and extent of the requested variances had been reduced, counsel for both the Applicant and the City submitted that no further notice was required, and the Tribunal agreed.
16The Tribunal then heard the expert land use planning evidence of David Aston. His evidence was uncontested.
17Addressing the higher order policy regime, he opined that the revised development proposal was a modest form of intensification in an area intended for intensification and would utilize existing infrastructure, had appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of the PA, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conformed to A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”), conformed to the Regional Official Plan, and he noted that the Region of Waterloo was in active contemplation of a Major Transit Station Area designation within which the Subject Lands would fall.
18Addressing the four tests of s. 45(1) of the PA, he testified that the City’s Official Plan designations of Community core Areas and Regeneration Areas were key focal points for intensification, that the revised Floor Space Index and the height would comply, and that in his opinion the proposed development would be compatible with the existing context. He concluded the revised application conformed to the Official Plan.
19With regard to the second test, he opined that the C1RM1 zoning dated from 1985 and it was a “compound” zone intended to allow for mixed-uses: both commercial and residential. He stated that, except for the two variances, all of the other zoning regulations were met: that the residential setback was to George Street North, and the interior side yard setback was to the 4th floor, and requested at 5 m whereas 6 m was required. He concluded that the revised application met the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
20Testifying to the third test as to whether the revised application was desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Subject Lands, he noted that this was an area where intensification was encouraged, that it was a compatible development, that a Shadow Study had been completed, and it was his opinion that this was a desirable development in an area intended for intensification.
21Finally, with regard to the fourth test of being minor in nature, he reviewed the two variances noting the modest differential in the interior side yard setback of 1 m was only at the 4th floor, and that the front yard setback complied for all but the residential portion of the proposed building, which was at 1.8 m and not the 4.5 m. These revised variances he opined were minor in nature.
22In summary he recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeal in part as the revised application met the four tests of s. 45(1) of the PA and he recommended two conditions of approval as set out in his Exhibit 4 at paragraph 20:
That the plans submitted with the variance application be substantially in keeping with the future site plan submission to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division; and
That the development includes the proposed commercial space at street level as part of this multi-use development in accordance with Official Plan policy 8.3.1.e.
23Under a question from counsel for the City, Mr. Aston agreed that condition 1 above should be amended to refer to the “revised” variance application.
ORAL SUBMISSIONS
24Both parties recommended approval of the revised minor variances in accordance with the testimony of Mr. Aston.
25With regard to the two recommended conditions of approval, there was agreement that condition 1 should reference the “revised” variance application.
26Turning to the second part of condition 1, Ms. Meader submitted that the wording should be “generally” in keeping with the site plan application, as opposed to “substantially” in keeping with the site plan application, as the revisions to the development application had come late in the process and this would provide some necessary flexibility moving forward at the Site Plan stage. There was no objection by the City.
DECISION
27The Tribunal will allow the appeal in part and authorize the revised minor variance application subject to two conditions.
28It is integral to this decision to highlight that Ontario’s land use planning system is led by Provincial Policy.
29S. 2 of the PA requires that the Tribunal have appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial Interest and in this regard the Tribunal notes these subsections:
h) the orderly development of safe and complete communities;
j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing; and
p) the appropriate location of growth and development.
30S. 3(5) of the PA mandates that the Tribunal (and also the Committee and City Council) shall make decisions on land use planning matters that are consistent with the PPS, and that conform to the Growth Plan.
31The PPS and the Growth Plan focus growth in Settlement Areas and Built-Up Areas. The Subject Lands are within both.
32The PPS and the Growth Plan encourage intensification, encourage the provision of a full range and mix of housing options, and direct that infrastructure be optimized.
33S. 4.6 of the PPS provides that the Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the PPS.
34The Regional Official Plan also identifies the Subject Lands in the Built-Up Area.
35The Cambridge Official Plan designates the Subject Lands as Galt City-Community Core Area and Regeneration Area, and the zoning for the Subject Lands is essentially for a mixed-use development which is what is before the Tribunal.
36Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Mr. Aston, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel, the Tribunal finds that the revised development application meets all the tests of the higher order regulatory land use instruments as it has appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of the PA; is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan and the Region of Waterloo Official Plan as being a modest form of intensification in a designation of the Official Plan that encourages regeneration and intensification.
37The Tribunal finds that the revised development proposal conforms to the Official Plan for the reasons set out above, and meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as all other zoning regulations have been met with the exception of the interior side yard at the 4th storey at 5 m, and the front yard setback at 4.5 m to the residential portion of the building.
38The Tribunal finds that the revised application is desirable for the appropriate use and development of the Subject Lands as implementing the policy direction of the Official Plan, the PPS and the Growth Plan.
39Finally, the Tribunal finds that the variances in the revised application are minor in nature from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective.
40The Tribunal, based on the submissions of counsel, will add two conditions of approval:
That the plans submitted with the revised application will generally be in keeping with the future site plan submission to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division; and
That the development includes the proposed commercial space at street level as part of this multi-use development in accordance with Official Plan policy 8.3.1.e.
41The Tribunal notes that the revised application came late in the process, and this wording for condition 1 will provide some flexibility at the Site Plan stage and thus the wording of the condition may assist in the resolution of any planning conflict involving public and private interests (see s. 2(n) of the PA).
42This is the Order of the Tribunal.
“Blair S. Taylor”
BLAIR S. TAYLOR MEMBER
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS 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.