Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 07, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL190453
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Heather-Jo Causyn
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-Z-2014 – Refusal or neglect of the County of Norfolk to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Marine Commercial (CM) and Hazard Land Zone (HL)
Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential Type 5 (R5) zone and Marine Commercial (CM), with special provisions and a holding symbol
Purpose: To permit the construction of a 6-storey residential apartment building
Property Address/Description: 24 Lynn St.
Municipality: County of Norfolk
Municipality File No.: ZNPL2019046
OLT Case No.: PL190453
OLT File No.: PL190453
OLT Case Name: Causyn v. Norfolk (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Heather-Jo Causyn
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-Z-2014 – Refusal or neglect of the County of Norfolk to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Marine Commercial (CM) and Hazard Land Zone (HL)
Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential Type 5 (R5) zone and Marine Commercial (CM), with special provisions and a holding symbol
Purpose: To permit the construction of a 6-storey residential apartment building
Property Address/Description: 24 Lynn St.
Municipality: County of Norfolk
Municipality File No.: ZNPL2019046
OLT Case No.: PL190453
OLT File No.: PL200064
OLT Case Name: Causyn v. Norfolk (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Heather-Jo Causyn
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to make a decision by the County of Norfolk
Existing Designation: Lakeshore Special Policy Area
Proposed Designated: Site Specific
Purpose: To permit the construction of a 6-storey residential apartment building
Property Address/Description: 24 Lynn St.
Municipality: County of Norfolk
Approval Authority File No.: OPNPL2019045
OLT Case No.: PL190453
OLT File No.: PL200063
Heard: April 6, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Heather-Jo Causyn
Nancy Smith
County of Norfolk
Paula Boutis
DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND N.P. ROBINSON ON APRIL 6, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Appellant and Applicant, Heather-Jo Causyn (the "Appellant"), appeals the failure of the County of Norfolk (the "County") to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) and seeks Official Plan amendments (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 17(40) of the Act.
2The Appellant sought permission from the County to construct a six-storey residential apartment building (Misner Landing, referred to herein as the “Development”). The proposed Development would have 90 units and two-storeys of underground parking.
3The required OPAs are to permit an increase of two storeys from the maximum four storey height and to permit a sole residential use.
4The purposed Zoning By-law No. 52-Z-2019 (“ZBA”) would amend Zoning By-law No. 1-Z-2014 from Marine Commercial (CM) and Hazard Land Zone (HL) to Urban Residential Type 5 (R5 (H)) zone and Marine Commercial (CM(H)) with a special provision.
5The Appellant seeks a (H) holding provision that would be incorporated into the proposed ZBA to allow for zoning permissions subject to confirmation of water supply for the Development.
6The thrust of these appeals surrounds the County’s concern for public access to an important waterway enjoyed by the local community and the ability to provide a critical utility (water and sewage supply) to the Development.
Site Condition
7The subject lands consist of an irregular lot legally described as All of Lot 1 and 12, Block 46 and Part of Lot 2, Block 46 and Part of Lynn Street (closed by By-law No. 885-74), Registered Plan 207, in the Town of Port Dover, in Norfolk County. The subject lands have an approximate total lot frontage of 38.4 metres (“m”) (125.9 feet) and a lot area of 0.905 hectares (2.236 acres).
8The subject lands are bound by Lynn River to the north and east, the Gamble Shipyards (subject to a development application, and also subject to LPAT appeals) to the south, and Chapman’s Street East and Lynn Street to the west. To the north, east and west of the subject lands are a mix of single detached dwellings, townhouses and a low-rise apartment building. Silver Lake is located immediately north-west of the subject lands which is comprised of Hazard Lands as identified in the Norfolk County Official Plan (“OP”) and the ZBA. Further east and south of the subject lands there are Urban Waterfront lands consisting of Marine related land uses. Lastly, further south-east is the Port Dover Downtown Area with a variety of commercial land uses.
9The subject lands are serviced with natural gas, electricity and municipal water supply. Currently, sanitary sewage generated on-site is directed to an underground sewage holding tank located on the property.
10The subject lands were utilized for the storage and distribution of fertilizer, seeds and grain since the mid-1800s. More recently, agricultural chemical products have been stored on-site, and certain buildings have been leased out for recreational vehicle sales, automotive repairs and storage of road de-icing salt.
Proposal
11The OPA (Application OPNPL2019045) and ZBA (Application ZNPL2019046) seek to permit the construction of a 90-unit, six storey residential apartment building with two storeys of underground parking. The application requested relief from Official Plan policies in order to exceed four-storeys and to permit a sole residential use. Part of the lands were proposed to be rezoned from CM to R5 with a special provision to permit a maximum of six storeys, a maximum floor area ratio of 0.78, a reduced interior side yard, a reduced drive aisle width, and reduced parking requirements. The lands zoned CM would only permit boathouses, docks, private amenity area, boardwalk, and community garden. A Holding (H) provision is proposed to be applied which can be lifted when a Record of Site Condition is registered.
12The Development will include a total of 90 units, 17 surface parking spaces, two levels of partially underground parking with 66 spaces on level A and 61 spaces on level B for a total of 144 parking spaces for the aforementioned units and visitors, and a private amenity area, community garden along the rear of the property abutting Lynn River, a boardwalk and new docks/boathouses with direct access onto the Lynn River.
13The hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”, formerly the Local Appeal Planning Tribunal) proceeded over the course of six days and the Tribunal heard from the following witnesses:
a. John Ariens was called to testify by the Appellant and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning;
b. Shannon VanDalen was called to testify by the Appellant and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning;
c. Tricia Givens, the Director of Planning of for the County, was called to testify by the County and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning;
14Additionally, the Port Dover Waterfront Preservation Association filed a participant statement which the Tribunal considered in rendering it’s decision. The statement includes relevant details about the current state of the marina and waterfront— especially with respect to public access and security.
BACKGROUND
15The matters before the Tribunal are dated and have a significant procedural history. Significant public consultation occurred in relation to the proposed Development. This includes an open house in Port Dover on April 10, 2019. The Appellant received community feedback that included traffic concerns, height and density concerns, and a desire for a waterfront trail along the river’s edge.
16On June 25, 2019, the County held a further public meeting to obtain input into the Development.
17On July 30, 2019 a further public meeting was held in Port Dover. Traffic safety concerns were raised which encouraged the Appellant to direct its consultant to conduct a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”).
18In response to these concerns, IBI Group’s Transportation Engineers completed the work and their analysis revealed that sight lines for the driveway connection onto Chapman Street exceeded minimum requirements and that neighboring intersections were also not negatively impacted by the proposed additional 90 apartment units. The TIS was submitted to the County on August 12, 2019.
19The Tribunal was informed that Jim Dover who represents the Port Dover Waterfront Preservation Association, asked to meet with the Appellant’s Planning Consultant along with other representatives of the Lynn Valley Trail Association to discuss the Silver Lake revitalization efforts, the repair needed to the Misner Dam, the redevelopment of the Misner lands and the abutting Gamble Shipyards, and to see if there was any way to connect the Lynn Valley Trail to the waterfront in Port Dover along the Lynn River. This meeting occurred at Mr. Dover’s residence in Simcoe on August 8, 2019.
20The Tribunal learned that the participants of this meeting were provided with copies of the Misner Landing Site Plan and the physical challenges involved in creating such a trail along the river’s edge. The participants were also informed that with private boat slips proposed along the river a significant security concern is created as the lower flood plain could not be fenced to separate the public trail from the boat slips. Further, the participants learned that of the grade differences and the difficulty in creating an AODA compliant trail connection.
21The Tribunal heard that, after these meetings, no definite technical issues were identified:
22Traffic safety concerns were addressed,
Site contamination was identified for mitigation together with the need for a Record of Site Services (“RoSC”),
The flood plain was avoided,
Servicing capacities in the immediate area were confirmed (however overall water supply limitations would affect all of Port Dover),
And compatibility with the neighbourhood was also confirmed.
23The Tribunal was informed that Planning Staff were prepared to recommend approval.
24Evidence was presented to the Tribunal that the County Official Plan has a section dealing with Density and Height Bonusing. Through discussions with Planning Staff the Applicant was prepared to add several significant community benefits including:
a landscaped square and observation deck overlooking the dam,
a 3 m wide pedestrian walkway across the frontage of these lands which would also be lined with nautical artifacts and historic plaques,
and a landscaped garden in front of the building containing a nautical themed sculpture all in lieu of the trail.
25Planning Staff prepared a report recommending approval of the application and recommended that Council accept these community benefits as adequate bonusing for the requested two additional floors.
26The Applicant was advised that the Council meeting to consider this report had been scheduled for the September 3, 2019 Council in Committee meeting.
27The Tribunal heard that the Planning Staff report was not included on the September 3, 2019 agenda. The agenda did however include an item identified under Items for Discussion as “Verbal Discussion (Mayor Chopp) Future of Port Dover”.
28During the discussion, Council unanimously directed the City Solicitor to bring forward an Interim Control By-law (“ICB”) halting any new development until an update of the Port Dover Land Use Policies had been completed. The next scheduled Council meeting was September 10, 2019 and the report was to be presented before Council at that time.
29The Tribunal further heard that on September 10, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. a Special Council meeting would be convened to adopt the ICB.
30Given that the motion to adopt the ICB was unanimous and that the ICB would be adopted before the report and Staff recommendation were to be considered, the Appellant determined that it was highly unlikely that the Staff recommendation would be approved and hence filed the Tribunal appeal for a non-decision on September 6, 2019. The OPA was appealed for a non-decision on October 29, 2019. A second ZBA appeal was filed on October 29, 2019. This is the same appeal that was filed on September 6, 2019.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
31The Tribunal set out a list of ten (10) Issues to be resolved in its order of December 21, 2020:
Is the Official Plan Amendment Application required in order for the development proposal to conform to the Official Plan?
Is the proposed building height in conformity with Section 7.16.2 c) ii) of the Official Plan?
Is the proposed development located within the 100-year flood line of the Lynn River and within the Lynn River/Black Creek Special Policy Area, and if so, is it consistent with Policy 3.1.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”) and in conformity with Section 6.5.2.4 of the Official Plan?
Is the proposed development in conformity with Sections 6.5.2.2, 7.16, and 8.2 of the Official Plan? Is the proposed development required to provide an opportunity for active transportation and access to the waterfront?
Will the proposal to reduce the number of parking spaces from the requirements in Section 4.9 of the Zoning By-law result in adverse impacts?
Do the proposed design elements respect and reinforce the existing character of the surrounding community, in conformity with Section 11.3.2.1 e) of the Lakeshore Policy Area Secondary Plan?
Is the building height appropriate?
Will the development proposal have any adverse traffic impacts?
Is the proposed development good planning?
Is the proposal premature given the servicing constraints in Port Dover and the implementation of an Interim Control By-law to allow for land use study in Port Dover?
32On January 21, 2021, the Tribunal ordered that the County provide an amended Issues List on or before February 19, 2021. On February 19, 2021, the County submitted the below Issues List:
Is the proposal consistent with the following policies under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020:
1.1.1(b)
1.4.3(a)
1.5.1(b)(c)
Is the proposed development in conformity with policies 2.1, 2.2.1.2(e), 2.2.4.2(a), (d),(f), (h); 4.5(a), (b)(ii); 5.3(c), 5.6(c), 6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.4(a)(vii), (d), 7.16, 7.16.1, 7.16.2, 9.6.1, 9.6.2, and 9.6.2.1 of the Official Plan?
Does the proposal conform to policy 6.8.1 of the official plan, which refers to Section 11 of the Lakeshore Policy Area Secondary Plan, including policies 11.2.1.4, 11.2.1.5, and Appendix D, including sections 2.3 (which references section 6 and 7 of the Waterfront Master Plan)?
Does the proposal have regard to the following matters of provincial interest, under s.2 of the Planning Act, specifically 2(i), 2(n), and 2(r)(iii)?
Should the proposal be subject to “Hold” provisions related to water servicing and requirements for a record of site condition?
Is the proposed development good planning?
Official Plan and Lakeshore Special Policy Area
33The County’s primary concerns centre around public access to an important waterfront and ensuring the proper provisioning of water and sewage utilities to the Development.
34The County OP provides no policy framework for public access through the site to the river. In fact, the OP expressly envisions water access to river solely in the Port Dover Waterfront Special Policy Area (“Waterfront SPA”) to the south.
35The Lakeshore Special Policy Area (“LSPA”) seeks to protect the County’s waterfront along the entire Lake Erie shoreline from Port Dover to Long Point.
36Within only the Urban Areas of the LSPA, the OP expressly envisions waterfront land dedications for lifestyle and resort communities. 11.3.2.1 (g) (x) states:
Any waterfront portion or Ontario’s South Coast Scenic Route frontage of the development shall include an appropriate trail system providing some form of public trail access to the water and connection to the broader lakeshore trail system, which shall be conveyed to the County at no cost
37Within Port Dover only, the OP identifies three (3) further Special Policy Areas. Starting at Lake Erie and moving north, the Special Policy Areas are:
Any waterfront portion or Ontario’s South Coast Scenic Route frontage of the development shall include an appropriate trail system providing some form of public trail access to the water and connection to the broader lakeshore trail system, which shall be conveyed to the County at no cost
38Within Port Dover only, the OP identifies three (3) further Special Policy Areas. Starting at Lake Erie and moving north, the Special Policy Areas are:
6.5.2.2 Waterfront SPA
6.5.2.4 Lynn River/Black Creek (“Lynn River SPA”)
6.5.2.3 Silver Lake (“Silver Lake SPA”)
39It is the intent of this Plan that the Port Dover Waterfront Area remain a unique area that supports tourism, the commercial fishery and provides recreational, commercial and cultural opportunities for residents. To achieve this, the policies of the Plan shall promote:
Public accessibility to the shorelines and to, from and with the Area through the possible establishment of a boardwalk and/or waterfront promenade; […]
the protection and enhancement of the Lynn River and Lake Erie shoreline
40The following policies are intended to complement the general development policies, and are more specific to the Port Dover Waterfront Area:
e) Where development is proposed, the provision of public access to the river’s edge or the lakeshore shall be pursued through required parkland dedications, gifts, bequests, purchases from funds allocating through the cash-ion-lieu of parkland provisions or other appropriate sources, land exchanges and/or negotiated through the development approval processes. The County may pursue the acquisition of waterfront property and public access to the waterfront in appropriate locations throughout the Port Dover Waterfront Area, particularly to ensure preservation of the beach.
41The OP has expressly identified where the County seeks public access to the water—namely, along Lake Erie in relation to lifestyle and resort communities and in the Waterfront SPA. The subject lands are in neither.
42The County relies on the Guidelines and the Port Dover Waterfront Master Plan and Secondary Plan 2001 (“Master Plan”) to support its public access request.
43The LSPA “promotes the use of the Guidelines to direct the development of buildings and streetscapes consistent with the established character of the area” as part of its Community Design Strategy. This policy applies to the entire secondary plan area.
44Within only the Urban Areas of the LSPA, Policy 11.3.2.1 expressly requires a review and evaluation in accordance with the Guidelines:
Development… shall respect and reinforce the existing character of the community and surrounding landscape. Development within the Urban Areas shall be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the LSPA Community Design Guidelines (Appendix “C”), particularly the Main Port Town community design guidelines.
45And finally, within the Waterfront SPA, Policy 11.3.2.1 requires the review and evaluation to also include the Master Plan:
In the case of Port Dover, development within the Dover Waterfront Special Policy Area, as identified in Section 6.5.2.2 (Port Dover Waterfront Special Policy Area) of this Plan, shall also be subject to the waterfront master plan and urban design guidelines outline in the Port Dover Waterfront Master Plan and Secondary Plan (January 2001). Document Book, Vol. 3, Exhibit 1C, Tab 31, p. 1061 [underlining added]
46Not surprisingly, this direction is mirrored in the s. 6 SPAs. Neither the Silver Lake SPA nor the Lynn River SPA reference the Guidelines or Master Plan. The Waterfront SPA does:
The following policies are intended to complement the general development policies, and are more specific to the Port Dover Waterfront Area:…
(c) The LSPA Community Design Guidelines provide general design guidelines related to the entire Urban area of Port Dover, including the Port Dover Waterfront Area. The Port Dover Waterfront Area is also subject to the waterfront master plan and urban design guidelines outline in the Port Dover Waterfront Master Plan and Secondary Plan (January, 2001).
47The foregoing establishes that the Master Plan only applies to lands within the Waterfront SPA. This is reflected in the Master Plan itself. The study area for the Master Plan is generally the same area covered by the Waterfront SPA.
48The Appellant further asserts, and the Tribunal agrees, that restricting public access to the river through the site is not feasible given several issues:
Security issues associated with public access to the boats;
Topography issues requiring significant fill and other design features (switch backs and resting areas) to make the trail comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”);
Design issues in separating the public and private realms;
Operational issues in restricting access to specified hours
49The Tribunal looks to the OP for instruction in relation to questions concerning public access. The OP contains specific policies addressing accessibility:
2.2.5.2 Objectives
…(h) Ensure that all public buildings and facilities and new development are accessible to all members of the public including people with disabilities.
5.6 Recreation
…(g) The County shall ensure that all parks and recreation facilities are accessible to all members of the public, including persons with disabilities.
50The Tribunal finds that the County’s OP would require the Appellant to undertake the task of making the site AODA compliant if public access to the river were required. The Tribunal is cognizant of the practical challenges posed by this requirement.
51The County has suggested public access in the form of a trail along the river. The Tribunal heard evidence that such a trail is not technically possible due to the significant grade difference between Chapman Street and the river’s edge and because the trail would need to cross an existing sluice at the south end of the property.
52The Tribunal also heard evidence that security and liability issues for property owners would also make public access difficult to accommodate. The lower flood plain cannot be fenced to separate the public trail from the private boat slips thus creating a security issue.
53The totality of these issues leads the Tribunal to find that public access in the case of this Development does not represent good planning. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has done everything possible to promote County OP policy 4.5 (b) (ii), which endeavours to create a system of trails for public use, and OP policy 2.2.4.2(f) which attempts to encourage lakeshore access. The practical realities of the Development make a public, shoreline trail impossible and thus, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Development complies with these and other OP and LSSPA (see 11.2.1.4 and 11.2.1.5) policies to the extent possible.
54In lieu of this, the pathway with historical artifacts proposed in lieu of this promotes the County’s position as an urban waterfront tourism node under 6.5.2.1 and the Development will encourage private recreation under 5.6 (c) of the OP.
55The Tribunal is satisfied that the amendment to the OPA to permit a height of six storeys and mixed use facilities at ground level are minor in nature and that this amendment must be considered in the context of the other factors discussed herein.
56The Tribunal finds that the Proposed ZBA meets all tests under the Act and represents good planning.
Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest
57In accordance with the Act, approval of the zone change as set out in the ZBA is contingent on whether such:
Has regard to matters of provincial interest in accordance with section 2 of the Act;
Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;
Conforms with the County of Perth Official Plan, 1997; and
Constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.
58Section 2 of the Act provides that "the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest." The Act proceeds to enumerate various 'matters of provincial interest.
59The imposition of a Hold will ensure that, in accordance with 2(f) in the matters of provincial interest enumerated, the Development will have “adequate provision and efficient use […] of sewage and water” facilities.
60The Development also encourages the “the orderly development of safe and healthy communities” (see 2(h)) and represents an “appropriate location of growth and development” (see 2(p)). Indeed, the County’s own staff report recommending approval is telling in this respect.
61The Tribunal finds that the Development has regard for matters of provincial interest and represents good planning.
Consistent with Provincial Policy Statement (2020)
62The Tribunal finds that the Development is consistent with policy 1.5.1 as the Development will create accessible built settings, trails and linkages (as stated in 1.5.1(b)).
63Policy 1.5.1(b) must be read together with 1.5.1(c), a policy which states that healthy active communities should be promoted by providing opportunities for public access to shorelines. Although the Development does not provide shoreline access, a 3m wide pedestrian walkway across the frontage of the subject land lined with nautical artifacts and historic plaques will be provided in lieu of shoreline access thus advancing the policy goals of 1.5.1(b).
64The Appellant has also proposed an observation deck and other investments that will enhance public use of the area surrounding the Development and thus promote the policy goals found in 1.5.1.
65The Tribunal finds that the imposition of a Hold whilst approving the Development promotes the goal of 1.6.1 of the PPS. The imposition of a Hold will allow the Appellant to continue to advance the project while coordinating with the County in relation to its water and sewage needs. The project will not proceed if the water and sewage issues are not addressed. Indeed, the approval of the Development with the caveat of a Hold will assist in coordinating land use planning and growth management for the County.
66The Development also promotes the revitalization of a brownfield site, an important policy goal under 1.7.1 (f); promotes opportunities for community development (see 1.7.1(a)) and improves the range and available supply of housing for the people of the province of Ontario (see 1.7.1(b)).
67The Tribunal is cognizant of the numerous ways in which the Development advances the above policy goals and thus finds that the Development is consistent with the PPS.
FINDINGS
68The Tribunal finds that the Development, with the imposition of a Hold provision, conforms to the County OPA and the LSSPA, has regard for the matters of provincial interest enumerated in the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2020 and represents good planning.
69The Tribunal further finds the imposition of an H will ensure that a building permit is not issued until conditions are met. Even without an H, there is no possibility that a building permit could issue in this case without a water solution. Section 34(5) of the Act authorizes municipalities to include sections in their zoning by- laws prohibiting land uses until municipal services are available and the County has included such a prohibition in s. 3.9.
70Site plan approval will also be contingent upon water availability and allocation by the County.
71The Tribunal finds that there is no benefit to withholding its order on these matters and that the use of an H adequately addresses concerns relating to the provision of water whilst allowing the Appellant to organize its affairs. Indeed, building permits could not issue without adequate provisions for water.
ORDER
72THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part subject to a Hold “H” condition pending confirmation of sufficient water and wastewater capacity sufficient to service and make allocation to the Development and that:
a. that the Official Plan for the County of Norfolk is modified as set out at Attachment A appended hereto.
b. By-law No. 1-z-2014 is amended as set out at Attachment B appended hereto.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI
MEMBER
“N.P. Robinson”
N.P. ROBINSON
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT A
The Corporation to Norfolk County
PART A: PREAMBLE TO THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of Amendment No. to the Norfolk County Official Plan is to permit a 6-storey residential building on the site whereas the Norfolk County Official Plan only permits 4-storeys.
Location of the Lands Affected:
As shown on the attached “Schedule “A”, the subject lands are located on Part of Lot 1 & 12, Block 46 and part of Lot 2, Block 46 and part of Lynn Street (closed by by-law No. 885-74) in the Town of Port Dover in Norfolk County.
Basis of the Amendment:
This amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Norfolk County Official Plan and the Lakeshore Policy Area Secondary Plan and is consistent and in conformity with these planning documents.
PART B: THE AMENDMENT
That the Norfolk County Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: Schedule Amendment:
That Schedule B-16, Land Use, in the Norfolk Official Plan is amended by identifying the lands shown as Subject Land in Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of this amendment as having reference to the site specific policy below.
Text Amendment:
On land designated Urban Waterfront – Site Specific Policy Area 7.16. as shown on Schedule “A” to this amendment, in addition to the uses and policies permitted, either a mixed use apartment building with retail and other commercial uses on the ground floor or a stand alone residential apartment building is permitted, any such building may have a maximum height of 6- storeys .
PART C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This document will be implemented by Norfolk County enacting an appropriate amendment to the Zoning By-Law of the Township of Port Dover Zoning By-Law 1-Z-2014.
Amendment No. to the Official Plan of Norfolk County
Schedule "A"
Site Location: 24 Lynn Street, Port Dover
ATTACHMENT B
The Corporation of Norfolk County By-Law xx-Z-2021
Being a By-Law to Amend Zoning By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, for property
described as Lots 1 and 12, Part Lynn Street Closed, Block 46, Plan 207, Urban Area of Port Dover, Norfolk County in the Name of Heather-Jo Causyn.
WHEREAS Norfolk Council is empowered to enact this By-Law, by virtue of the provisions of Sections 34 and 36(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.13, as amended;
AND WHEREAS this By-Law conforms to the Norfolk County Official Plan.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of Norfolk County hereby enacts as follows:
That Schedule A of By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning of the lands identified as Part 1 on Map A (attached to and forming part of this By-Law) from Marine Commercial Zone (CM) to Marine Commercial Zone (CM(H)) with a Holding;
That Schedule A of By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning of the lands identified on Part 2 on Map A (attached to and forming part of this By-Law) from Marine Commercial Zone (CM) and Hazard Land Zone (HL) to Urban Residential Type 6 Zone (R6(H)) with a holding;
That Schedule A of By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, is hereby further amended by delineating the lands identified as the subject lands on Map A (attached to and forming part of this By-Law) as having reference to Subsection 14.959;
That Schedule A of By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the reference to Subsection 14.519 on the lands identified as the subject lands on Map A (attached to and forming part of this By-Law);
That Schedule 14.959.1, (attached to and forming part of this By-Law) be included and form part of By-Law 1-Z-2014;
That Subsection 14 Special Provisions is hereby further amended by deleting Subsection 14.519
That Subsection 14 Special Provisions is hereby further amended by adding the following:
By-Law -Z-2021 Page 2 of 5
14.959 On Part 1 of Schedule 14.959.1, in lieu of the uses permitted in the CM
Zone, only the following uses are permitted:
a) boathouses
b) docks
c) amenity area
d) boardwalk
In lieu of Section 3.2.2 d) and e), the following shall apply:
e) maximum usable floor area for all boathouses – 1,100 square metres;
f) maximum lot coverage for all boathouses – 12 percent.
On Part 2 of Schedule 14.959.1, in lieu of the corresponding provisions in the R6
Zone, the following shall apply:
g) in addition to the uses permitted in the R6 Zone retail, restaurant, office or service uses are permitted on the first storey;
h) minimum interior side yard: 2.9 metres
i) maximum building height: six (6) storeys
j) maximum floor area ratio – 0.78.
In lieu of the requirements of Subsection 4.1.4 Parking Aisle Requirements, the following shall apply:
k) For two-way traffic, 90 degree parking, the parking aisle width shall be 6 metres.
In lieu of the requirements of Subsection 4.9 Number of Parking Spaces, the following shall apply:
l) Apartment dwelling: 1.25 parking spaces for each dwelling unit and no parking is required for any non-residential use.
In lieu of the requirements of Subsection 4.2.4 c), the following shall apply:
m) A parking lot and parking spaces shall be permitted between a dwelling
and the street line.
- That the holding (H) provision of this By-Law shall be removed upon:
By-Law -Z-2021 Page 3 of 5
a) the filing of a Record of Site Condition in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act;
b) confirmation of sufficient water and wastewater capacity sufficient to service and make an allocation to the development of 90 residential dwelling units or commercial uses to the satisfaction of Norfolk County; and,
That Schedule A of By-Law 1-Z-2014, as amended, is hereby further amended by removing the symbol (H) on the subject lands identified on Map A (attached to and forming part of this By-Law) at such time as the General Manager of Development and Cultural Services is satisfied that all the conditions relating to the holding (H) provision have been met and the said General Manager issues a memo to the same effect;
That the effective date of this By-Law shall be the date of passage thereof.
ENACTED AND PASSED this xx day of xx, 2021.
Mayor
County Clerk
By-Law -Z-2021 Page 4 of 5
By-Law -Z-2021 Page 5 of 5
Explanation of the Purpose and Effect of By-Law xx-Z-2021
This By-Law affects a parcel of land described as Lots 1 and 12, Part Lynn Street Closed, Block 46, Plan 207, Urban Area of Port Dover, Norfolk County, located at 24 Lynn Street.
The purpose of this By-Law is to change the zoning on part of the subject lands from CM and HL to R6 with a special provision to permit the construction of a six storey mixed use or residential apartment building, and to permit reductions to parking, parking aisle width, minimum interior side yard, maximum building height, and to establish a maximum floor area ratio. Site specific relief is also being added to reduce the range of permitted uses in the CM Zone.
A holding “(H)” provision is being placed on the zoning on the subject lands to ensure the filing of a Record of Site Condition in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04; to ensure adequate water and wastewater servicing capacity is available.
Applicant Heather-Jo Causyn File Number ZNPL2019046 Report Number DCS 19-46