Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200660
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Ian Dasti
Subject: BL 113-2020
Municipality: City of Thunder Bay
LPAT Case No.: PL200660
LPAT File No.: PL200660
LPAT Case Name: Dasti v. Thunder Bay (City)
Heard: via video hearing July 9, 2021
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Ian Dasti (“Appellant”)
Ryan Bodnar
2624830 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)
Evan Jurrakko
City of Thunder Bay (“City”)
Cynthia Anne Cline
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN
1This Decision and Order is issued following the conversion of a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to a Settlement Hearing. The matter before the Tribunal has been brought pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act. The Parties have consented to the dismissal of the Appeal conditional upon receipt and approval by all Parties of a final computer-generated Site Plan and executed Site Plan Control Agreement.
22624830 Ontario Inc. filed an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a two-story four-unit apartment building. On October 19, 2020, the City approved the amendment to the Zoning By-law. Ian Dasti appealed the decision to the Tribunal (the “Appeal”).
3The Applicant owns the land at 184 Brent Street (the “Property”) in the City. The Property is an interior lot.
4The Property is zoned R2 pursuant to City By-law No. 100-2010 as amended (the “By-law”). The proposed four-unit dwelling is not a permitted use on an interior lot in the R2 zone.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
5The Settlement is supported by the sworn affidavit evidence of Jamie Kirychuk, who was qualified to give opinion evidence in areas of land use planning to assist the Tribunal in its deliberations.
6Mr. Kirychuk explained that By-law No. 113/2020 is a site specific By-law that would amend Zoning By-law 100-2010, as amended, , specifically to add a four-unit apartment dwelling as a permitted use on an interior lot in the "R2" - Residential Zone Two. In addition, the By-law would reduce the minimum required lot frontage to 20.0 metres from 22.0 metres, reduce the driveway width for two-way traffic leading to a parking area to 4.5 metres from 6.0 metres, reduce the minimum required lot area to 643.0 square metres from 660.0 square metres, reduce the minimum required front yard to 4.2 metres from 6.0 metres, and increase the minimum required interior side yard (south) to 2.6 metres from 1.5 metres.
7Mr. Kirychuk testified that the recommended settlement includes a condition that a site plan control agreement be entered into between the Applicant and the City and registered on title to the property.
8He testified that the terms of the Draft Order would not require any revisions to By-law No. 113/2020 and therefore, would allow for all the provisions of By-law No. 113/2020 to be maintained. It was his opinion that the Site Plan Control Agreement in the form attached to the Draft Order complies with proposed By-law No. 113/2020.
9Mr. Kirychuk informed the Tribunal that the Parties have agreed to the Site Plan but are awaiting a computer-generated version.
10The affiant also confirmed that the development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 and the Official Plan.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11The Tribunal accepts the unchallenged expert testimony of Jamie Kirychuk, who stated that the amendment to Zoning By-law No. 100-2010, as described in the Minutes of the Settlement reached between the parties and marked as Exhibit # 1 in this proceeding, maintains conformity with the City Zoning By-law No. 100-2020, represents principles of good planning, is appropriate, and promotes the overall public interest of the community.
12The Tribunal finds that the settlement details described result in a site plan which represents, good planning. Mr. Kirychuk’s opinion and professional planning evidence were based on the comprehensive review of the requisite planning documents and his opinions were uncontradicted and supported by the Parties.
13The 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.
DISPOSITION
14The Tribunal will issue its order dismissing the appeal once it has been notified by the parties that the City and Applicant have entered into a Site Plan Agreement satisfactory to all parties, which has been registered on title to the property.
15In the event the Parties do not notify the Tribunal that the Site Plan Agreement has been executed by the parties or registered on title to the property by August 20, 2021, the Parties are directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order including an Issues List, to be submitted to the Case Coordinator in order to move this matter to a contested hearing.
“D. Chipman”
D. Chipman
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.