2741546 Ontario Inc. v. Pelham (Town), 2021 CanLII 88697

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 17, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200477

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2741546 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 1136 (1987) – Refusal of Application by the Town of Pelham

Existing Zoning: R1 (Residential 1) Zone

Proposed Zoning: RM1 (Residential Multiple 1) Zone, site-specific

Purpose: To permit the construction of three townhouse units

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 2, Concession 8, 1307 Haist Street

Municipality: Town of Pelham

Municipal File No.: AM-05-2020

OLT Case No.: PL200477

OLT File No.: PL200477

OLT Case Name: 2741546 Ontario Inc. v. Pelham (Town)

Heard: September 14, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
2741546 Ontario Inc.	P. Maloney
Town of Pelham	K. Strong

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

12741546 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”/ “Appellant”) seeks a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) that was denied by the Town of Pelham (“Town”). On appeal, the Town undertook further review and reached a settlement with the Applicant based on a revised ZBA.

2At 1307 Haist Street (“site”) in the community of Fonthill, the Applicant proposes to replace the existing detached dwelling with three single-storey, street-front townhouses.

3An affidavit and oral evidence were received from William Pol, a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Town. His affidavit, entered as an exhibit, contains attachments that include the Town planning staff’s original report recommending that the ZBA be approved.

4One Participant statement is on record from Julie Alexander, owner of the abutting dwelling to the east of the site. Ms. Alexander opposes the three townhouses based on concerns including neighbourhood character, parking and landscaped buffer. Ms. Alexander received notice of this hearing but was not present today. The Parties could not confirm whether Ms. Alexander is aware of the proposed settlement.

5Mr. Pol attests support for a revised ZBA that more narrowly permits the land use of three townhouses, limits building height and disallows secondary suites, for reasons as follow. The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”) support intensification through redevelopment within the built-up area to accommodate an increased housing supply. The Region of Niagara Official Plan (“ROP”) similarly directs intensification to built-up areas and encourages a variety of housing types. Specifically, the Town Official Plan (“TOP”) permits intensification on collector streets, being the classification of both Haist Street and Pancake Lane abutting this site. With the limitations contained in the revised ZBA, Mr. Pol considers that the townhouses represent a scale and character appropriate for the broader neighbourhood. Sufficient on-site parking is provided and appropriate fencing and landscape plantings will be required by the Town through its site plan control process.

6Mr. Pol confirms his agreement with the planning review contained in the supportive report of Town planning staff (“staff”). In finding consistency with the PPS and conformity with the GP, ROP and TOP, staff note policies for a range of housing options, efficient use of infrastructure and public service facilities, energy efficiency, and proximity to parks, schools and shopping.

7With the objective for the fair involvement of Ms. Alexander, the Tribunal is content to proceed on the understanding that she was notified of today’s hearing but was not in attendance. Through the evidence of Mr. Pol, the Tribunal is satisfied that the scale and character of the townhouses are appropriate for the neighbourhood, that sufficient on-site parking is proposed, and to the specific concern for appropriate buffering between the townhouse rear yards and Ms. Alexander’s property, that the Town will require appropriate fencing and/or landscape plantings through its site plan control process.

8In accepting the above evidence, the Tribunal underscores the staff’s reference to three single-storey townhouses as an “example of gentle intensification.” The Tribunal agrees that this low-rise and low-density development will fit harmoniously into the neighbourhood without negative impacts on the use and enjoyment of area properties. The Tribunal also accepts that appropriate landscaped buffering and fencing will be required along the site’s east lot line through the Town’s requirements under site plan control.

9The Tribunal finds that the revised ZBA satisfies all statutory tests and will be approved. It has regard for the provincial interests in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the GP, and conforms with the ROP and TOP.

ORDER

10The appeal is allowed in part and the Town of Pelham Zoning By-law No. 1136 (1987) is amended by Zoning By-law Amendment No. 4377 (2021) contained in Attachment 1 to this Decision.

“S. Tousaw”

S. TOUSAW 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.

PL200477 – Attachment 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE T O W N OF P E L H A M BY-LAW NO. 4377(2021)

Being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law 1136 (1987), as amended, for lands located at the northeast corner of Haist Street and Pancake Lane, legally described as Part of Lot 2, Concession 8, Town of Pelham, Regional Municipality of Niagara, from the Residential 1 (R1) zone to a site specific Residential Multiple 1 (RM1-299) zone.

Town of Pelham File No. AM-05-20

WHEREAS, Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended provides that the governing body of a municipal corporation may pass by-laws to regulate the use of lands and the character, location and use of buildings and structures;

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Pelham has recommended that such a by-law be enacted;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Pelham has deemed it to be in the public interest that such a by-law be enacted;

NOW THEREFORE, the ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL enacts as follows:

THAT Schedule “A5” to Zoning By-law 1136 (1987) as amended, is hereby further amended by rezoning the lands identified on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this By-law from Residential 1 (R1) to the site specific Residential Multiple 1 (RM1-299) zone.
THAT Section 30 of Zoning By-law 1136 (1987) as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following:

RM1-299

Notwithstanding Subsection 16.1 and Subsection 16.3 (a), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h) of the Residential Multiple 1 zone, the lands identified as RM1-299 shall be subject to the following provisions:

Section 16.1 Permitted Uses:

(a) Street townhouse dwellings

(b) Uses, Buildings and Structures accessory to the foregoing permitted use.

Prohibited Use:

(a) Second dwelling units

Section 16.3 Zone Requirements for Street Townhouse Dwellings

(a) Minimum Lot Frontage 17.0 metres (55.8 feet)

(d) Minimum Front Yard 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) to front building face and 6.0 metres (19.69 feet) to a garage

(e) Minimum Exterior Side Yard 4.5 metres (14.76 feet)

(g) Minimum Rear Yard 7.0 metres (22.97 feet)

(h) Maximum Building Height 6.0 metres (19.68 feet)

That this Bylaw shall come into effect and force from and after the date of approval and Order issued by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Schedule “A” to By-law No. 4377 (2021).