Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 19, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200571
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Raymond Evans
Subject: By-law No. BL2020-56
Municipality: Town of Gravenhurst
LPAT Case No.: PL200571
LPAT File No.: PL200571
LPAT Case Name: Evans v. Gravenhurst (Town)
Heard: July 7 - 8, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
1765267 Ontario Inc. ("Applicant")
Raymond Evans ("Appellant")
Counsel*/Representative
Steven Watt*
Self-represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act ("Act"), for the passage of Zoning By-law No. 2020-56 by the Council of the Town of Gravenhurst ("Gravenhurst"). The Site-Specific Zoning By-law deals with various amendments to site requirements under Zoning By-law No. 2010-04 for the property located at 755 Bethune Drive South ("Subject Property"), Town of Gravenhurst, District Municipality of Muskoka ("Muskoka").
2The Applicant wishes to re-develop the Subject Property which is currently an under-utilized brownfield site on Bethune Drive bounded by Veterans Way on one side and Main Street on the other side. The Subject Property is close to the Gravenhurst central business district and the Applicant wishes to construct a gas station with 6 fueling stations, a convenience store and a restaurant that includes a drive-through. The Subject Property is zoned "C-2 Commercial Service Area" and all the proposed uses are currently permitted under Zoning By-law No. 2010-04.
3The Gravenhurst passed the Site-Specific Zoning By-law which adjusted specific site zoning requirements stipulated by Zoning By-law No.2010-04 on October 27, 2020. The Council decision was supported by the recommendations of the report from the Gravenhurst Planning Department that the Site-Specific By-law reduced the following requirements under Zoning By-law No. 2010-04:
a) the combined number of off-street parking spaces required for the three commercial uses being proposed,
b) the vehicle stacking requirements for the gas islands,
c) the required percentage of the lot to be landscaped,
d) the exterior side yard requirement for the parking aisle closest to Main Street,
e) the setback requirement for the internal traffic aisles and parking adjacent to Bethune Drive, and
f) the minimum lot frontage on Veterans Way.
NATURE OF THE APPEAL
4The Appellant did not present expert evidence at the hearing to challenge the expert evidence introduced through the Applicant, as outlined below, and chose to present his own evidence.
5It was the opinion of the Appellant that the Gravenhurst Council did not meet the standards of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 ("PPS") in giving adequate regard to the public concerns. The Appellant confirmed that he did participate in the process, including a written submission to the Council for consideration. The Appellant informed the Tribunal that the Council made its decision without raising the concerns within his written submissions.
6It is the duty of the members of Council to review reports and submissions to determine what questions they may or may not want to ask. The absence of a question related to a written submission does not equate to the principle of not giving adequate regard to the opinion of the public. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the evidence presented by the Appellant that the Gravenhurst process was not properly handled.
7The Appellant's principal concern related to the use to the property as a gasoline station due to the perceived health and safety concerns. The current zoning of the property permits this use and the other proposed uses of the property. The Site-Specific By-law does not deal with or amend the commercial zoning of the Subject Property. Thus, the Appellant's concern regarding use can not be addressed by the Tribunal. The sole matter properly before the Tribunal is an appeal of the Site-Specific By-law.
8The applicable test for the review of the Site-Specific By-law is set out in s. 3(5), and s. 24(1) of the Act. Essentially, in its review of the Site-Specific By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the applicable Official Plans.
9The Appellant expressed numerous concerns regarding the proposed development and the Site-Specific Zoning By-law. These included inadequate site parking, inadequate landscaping, the height of the proposed fencing, over-development of the property due to the proposed size of the building structure and pedestrian safety concerns due to ingress and egress from the property
EXPERT WITNESSES
10The Applicant presented the expert reports and viva voce evidence of the following experts at the hearing, who were qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in their respective fields:
John Northcote, a Licensed Professional Engineer specializing in transportation matters at JD Northcote Engineering Inc., and
Wayne Simpson, a Registered Professional Planner at Wayne Simpson & Associates. (collectively "Expert Witnesses").
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
11Mr. Simpson testified that the proposed application is consistent with the general policies of the PPS. Mr. Simpson informed the Tribunal that in his expert opinion the proposed development focuses on growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas and the efficient use of land in order to optimize public investment in infrastructure as well as promoting economic activity. This Site-Specific Zoning By-law will facilitate the conversion of an unused brownfield site currently serviced by public services to a productive economic contributor to the local economy.
12Furthermore, in the opinion of Mr. Simpson the proposed development speaks to the PPS objectives to support long-term economic prosperity, that is supported by existing infrastructure and public utilities, and is efficient land use planning.
OFFICIAL PLANS
13The Official Plans ("OP") under consideration are the Gravenhurst Official Plan ("GOP") and the Muskoka Official Pan ("MOP").
14The Tribunal was informed by the Expert Witnesses that the Site-Specific By-law reduces various site requirements stipulated by Zoning By-law No. 2010-04 in the following ways and the Expert Evidence was that the changes represent conformity with the two OPS and good planning for the reasons identified for each item as follows.
a) There will be a reduction of the minimum lot frontage requirement on Veterans Way of the Subject Property to 50 metres from the 60 metres required by Zoning By-law No. 2010-04. It is the opinion of the Expert Witnesses that this reduction is not significant given that the frontage of the property on Bethune Drive exceeds 60 metres required by Zoning By-law No. 2010-04 and the frontage will be 56.28 metres on the adjacent roads.
b) There will be a reduction of off-street parking spaces for the three commercial uses being proposed to 19, two of which are accessible, from the 33 parking spaces (two of which must be accessible), required by Zoning By-law No. 2010-04. The testimony of the Expert Witnesses informed the Tribunal that compared to other similar sized or other communities within Muskoka the reduction of spaces is not significant since the proposed number of parking spaces compares favourably to the parking requirements and will be adequate.
c) There will be a reduction in the number of vehicles stacking requirements for the gas pumps to six from the 12 required. Mr. Northcote using a comparison of the larger community of Barrie stated that the proposed vehicle stacking reduction will be adequate.
d) There will be a reduction to the exterior side yard requirement for the parking aisle closest to Main Street from 3 metres required by Zoning By-law No. 2010-04 to 1.5 metres. In the opinion of Mr. Simpson this is not significant and would provide an opportunity to augment the landscaping within the Main Street Boulevard at the site plan stage of the development process.
e) There will be a reduction to the setback requirement for the internal traffic aisles and parking adjacent to Bethune Drive and relief from the requirement of a 3-metre-wide landscaped strip. The Expert Witnesses stated that this is not significant since it is likely that there will be an opportunity to augment the landscaping on Bethune Drive at the site plan stage of the development process given the 40-metre expanse of this road.
f) There will be a reduction to the required percentage of the lot to be landscaped from 20% to 12.5%. In the testimony of the Expert Witnesses this is not significant. It was their opinion that there will be an opportunity to augment the landscaping on public spaces surrounding the property at the site plan stage of the development process.
g) Mr. Northcote also offered evidence on the North and South Access points and how the site will operate efficiently as designed. His evidence also presented the adequacy of the vehicle stacking for the drive-through of the proposed development.
15The intent of the GOP is to guide future development to areas where it is most suited. The GOP designates the Subject Property as Highway Commercial which includes use for automotive related sales and service, and restaurants.
16The intent of the MOP is to promote responsible development by efficiently using land and public infrastructure. The proposed development of the Subject Property will help strengthen the settlement structure of Muskoka by focusing growth to the urban centre and to underutilized serviced land.
CONCLUSION
17In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. Simpson and Mr. Northcote. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to long-term prosperity and social well-being, promotes sustainable and resilient communities and in particular, creates employment opportunities desired by Gravenhurst.
18The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised by the Appellant but was not persuaded that the concerns he has raised are either sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the planned development, or otherwise bears relevance to the land use planning merits of the proposal.
19The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and as maintained by the GOP and the MOP, conforms to the policies contained in each of the GOP and MOP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.
ORDER
20The Tribunal orders that the Appeal against the Town of Gravenhurst By-law No. 2020-56 is dismissed.
"A. Cornacchia"
A. CORNACCHIA MEMBER
"Steven Cooke"
STEVEN COOKE 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.