Whitelock v. Brock (Township), 2022 CanLII 101378

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 26, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004009

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Kevin Whitelock

Applicant: The Nourish and Develop Foundation

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variance to accommodate a Crisis Care centre

Reference Number: A-4/22

Property Address: 124 Laidlaw Street South

Municipality/UT: Brock/ Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004009

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004009

OLT Case Name: Whitelock v. Brock (Township)

Heard: October 14, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

The Nourish and Develop Foundation

Samantha Lampert*

Kevin Whitelock

Self-Represented

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This matter had been scheduled for a one-day hearing commencing on October 14, 2022, to consider the appeal by Kevin Whitelock (the “Appellant”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the Township of Brock (the “Township”) Committee of Adjustment (the “COA”) decision to approve the minor variance application for six (6) minor variance requests in relation to Zoning By-law No. 287-78-PL.

2The Subject Property is municipally known as 124 Laidlaw Street South, Cannington.

3The proposal is to permit the construction of an addition to accommodate a Crisis Care Centre and to bring the existing dwelling into conformity with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

SITE CONTEXT

4The Subject Lands are in an “L” shape with a corner lot frontage of 20.12 metres on Laidlaw Street South and 50.52 metres facing Davidson Street. The rear portion of the lot is 16.76 metres wide on Davidson Street and 40.18 metres deep, thus, taking the “L” shape.

5The Subject Lands have an existing dwelling with two accessory dwelling units, which have approximately 338 square metres of area between both floors of the dwelling. The dwelling has served its current residential use for over 16 years. Prior to this use, the dwelling was a nursing home.

6The surrounding neighbourhood has a mixed use of single detached dwellings to the north, east and south. To the west is a long-term care facility, a low-rise apartment, a funeral home and a former medical clinic that is now a four-unit apartment building.

APPLICATION HISTORY

7A minor variance application was submitted to the Township By the Nourish and Develop Foundation approximately on March 21, 2022. The application came before the COA on May 31, 2022. The proposal asked the COA to approve six (6) minor variances. The variances being requested were the following:

1. Section 7, Plate C, Row 12, Column H: Request the reduction of the side yard setback to 2.2 metres, whereas 8 metres is required;

2. Section 7, Plate C, Row 19: Request the reduction of the Minimum Centreline Setback to 10.5 metres, whereas 18.058 metres is required;

3. Section 10.1m: Request that the encroachment of unenclosed porches, balconies, steps or patios of 1.5 metres, whereas 2 metres is required;

4. Section 10.18m: Request the amount of nine parking spaces, whereas a minimum of 22 parking spaces is required;

5. Section 10.18d.v.: Requested reduction in the parking area design requirements to allow a parking isle width of 6 metres, whereas 6.7 metres is required; and,

6. Section 10.18f: To permit the two existing parking spaces at the front of the existing building.

8The COA approved the application subject to two conditions:

1. Provide for a minimum of 13 parking spaces on site; and,

2. Maintain a drive aisle of 6.5 metres north of parking space number 6 with a drive aisle width of 6 metres south of parking space number 6, on the applicable drawing provided with the application.

9After the decision, Mr. Whitelock, the neighbour directly north of the Subject Lands, appealed the decision on June 16, 2022, to the Tribunal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10In the determination of this Appeal, it must be noted that pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act, this is a hearing de novo and the onus is on The Applicant”) of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act have been met.

11Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, as well as regard for the decision of the Township and the information it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

12The Tribunal must evaluate the minor variances in the context of the following four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act:

a. Do they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans?

b. Do they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

c. Are they minor?

d. Are they desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

PLANNING EVIDENCE

13At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal was made aware that the Applicant would be calling three (3) witnesses in favour of the application. Mr. Whitelock would not be calling any witnesses, however, would give his own testimony against the application.

14The Tribunal entered the following items as exhibits for the Hearing:

1. Exhibit No. 1 - Document Book of The Nourish and Develop Foundation;

2. Exhibit No. 2 - Witness Statement of Michael Smith;

3. Exhibit No. 3 - Witness Statement of Casey Ge;

4. Exhibit No. 4 -Witness Statement of Charles Rosenberg;

5. Exhibit No. 5 - Evidence Email Provided by Kevin Whitelock.

Witness No. 1 Michael Smith

15Mr. Smith was affirmed and qualified without refute as an expert witness to give professional opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

16Mr. Smith took the Tribunal through a description of the Subject Lands including photos he had taken of the site. He also took the Tribunal through a description of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”)

17Mr. Smith opined that the proposal is consistent with policy s. 1.4.3 (b) and Housing s. 1.4.3:

Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

(b) permitting and facilitating:

1. all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements and needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities.

18Mr. Smith informed the Tribunal through the definition of “special needs” under s. 6.0 of the PPS:

6.0 Special Needs:

means any housing, including dedicated facilities, in whole or in part, that is used by people who have specific needs beyond economic needs, including but not limited to, needs such as mobility requirements or support functions required for daily living. Examples of special needs housing may include, but are not limited to long-term care homes, adaptable and accessible housing, and housing for persons with disabilities such as physical, sensory or mental health disabilities, and housing for older persons.

19In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the development is consistent with the PPS as it supports the policies of developing safe communities to an appropriate mix of housing options and specifically, special needs housing.

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (the “GP”)

20Mr. Smith opined that like the PPS, the GP is another high-level provincial policy that guides growth for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which includes Brock Township. The proposal conforms to the following sections of the GP:

Section 2.2.1.4:

Applying the policies of this Plan still support the achievement of complete communities that:

a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities;

b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes.

Section 2.2.6.1:

Upper- and single-tier municipalities, in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, the Province, and other appropriate stakeholders, will:

c) align land use planning with applicable housing and homelessness plans required under the Housing Services Act, 2011.

21In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the proposal conforms to the GP and the policy objectives that contribute to a mix use of land uses and aligning land use planning with housing and homelessness plans.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009

22The Subject Lands are identified as being partially in the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (the “LSRCA”) regulation mapping. As a result, any construction or site alteration is subject to a permit for the Authority. Since the size of the overall ground floor area is below 500 square metres, this proposal is not considered a “Major Development” as per the LSRCA. As such, a phosphorous budget will be required at the site plan stage.

23In his opinion, Mr. Smith stated the proposal conforms with the LSRCA and the LSRCA did recommend that the application be approved at the COA meeting.

Policy Statement: Service Manager Housing and Homelessness Plans, 2010

24The 2010 Provincial Policy Statement provides guidance to Service Managers – in this case, Durham Region – to support the development of local housing and homelessness plans, which address the complexity and diversity of people seeking assistance. In s. 5.2(b), it states:

(b) Include a strategy to address the housing needs for survivors of domestic violence, in coordination with other community-based services and supports.

25Mr. Smith’s opinion was the proposal addresses the housing needs for survivors of domestic violence and meets the intent of this policy.

Durham Region Official Plan, 1993 and Consolidated May 2020

26Mr. Smith opined that the Subject Lands are designated “Living Areas” on Schedule “A”. As a part of Schedule “A”, policy 8B.2.1 provides that:

Living Areas, as designated on Schedule “A” shall be used predominantly for housing purposes including group homes.

27As for s. 4 concerning housing, Mr. Smith demonstrated to the Tribunal that policy 4.3.7(d) states that:

4.3.7 Regional Council shall regularly monitor the housing market, including the following:

(d) the provision of, and requirements for, special needs housing.

28Mr. Smith opined that the proposal conforms to these two policies of the Durham Region Official Plan.

Durham Region Housing Plan 2014-2024

29The first goal of the Durham Region Housing Plan 2014-2024 is to end homelessness, specifically to develop long term approaches to improve the ability of households to access housing. Specifically in this goal is the priority for social housing to victims of domestic violence through the provincial Special Priority policy.

30Mr. Smith opined that the proposal meets the intent of the Durham Region Housing Plan as the proposal helps fulfill the need of social housing for victims of domestic violence.

Township of Brock Official Plan, 2007 and Consolidated March 2022

31The Subject Lands are designated “Residential Area” on Map 2-A of the Cannington Urban Area. Mr. Smith opined that the following sections are appropriate and demonstrate that the proposal conforms to the Township of Brock Official Plan (“Township Official Plan”):

4.3.5 To promote and integrate community structure and design that ensure a broad mix and range of unit sizes, housing forms, types and tenures that will satisfy the needs of the residents.

4.4.2 Strong, healthy, inclusive communities have a broad mix of housing types, tenure opportunities and price ranges available to meet the needs of all residents. The Township shall encourage the provision of a full range of housing types, including affordable housing and densities to meet the projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents within the Settlement Areas.

5.2.3.9 The development of a wide range of housing opportunities for rental and ownership tenure which is available to all socio-economic levels shall be encouraged. Uses such as group homes, transitional housing and crisis care facilities shall be permitted in Residential Areas.

32Pertaining to intensification, Mr. Smith opined that the Township Official Plan provides direction on acceptable forms of intensification under s. 5.2.3.5 and 5.2.3.12:

5.2.3.5 The development of more intensive residential uses through infilling, intensification, redevelopment and new residential development shall meet the following criteria, in addition to any other requirements set forth in this Plan:

a) Adequate capacity of municipal water and sewer services are available to the site.

b) Satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Region and the developer to provide adequate municipal water and sewer services in the event that they are not adjacent to the site. Not applicable.

c) The developer has entered into any necessary agreements with the Township and Region;

d) The proposed use is complementary with the physical and built form of the surrounding area;

e) The impact of traffic generated does not have an undue impact on the existing roads and surrounding uses; and,

f) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided

5.2.3.12 Residential intensification shall only be permitted subject to compliance with the following criteria:

a) The physical potential of the exiting building stock can accommodate such forms of housing;

b) Adequate municipal services are available to support the creation of intensive residential forms;

c) The road network can accommodate traffic;

d) The proposed development is compatible with the existing development and physical character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood;

e) Appropriate signage, parking and landscaping is provided; and,

f) The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the land use designation associated with the land.

33Mr. Smith concluded, in his opinion, that the proposal conforms to these policies as there is adequate municipal servicing capacity and services to the site. The purposed use is complimentary to the physical and built form of the surrounding area. There will not be any traffic impacts on existing roads as adequate off-street parking will be provided. The purposed use is permitted in the Residential Area designation.

Township Zoning By-law No. 287-78-PL, 1979 (the “ZBL”)

34Mr. Smith showed the Tribunal that the proposal is designated in the “Residential Type One (R1)” Zone. Permitted uses within the “R1” Zone include a “Crisis Care Residence”. Under the ZBL, a Crisis Care Residence is defined as:

11.40 Shall mean an establishment that provides a means of immediate, temporary accommodation and assistance for a short-term period, which is generally less than three months for the majority of the residents.

35As for Permitted Uses, Mr. Smith showed the Tribunal that under Plate “B” “R1” subsection “r” states that:

r. A crisis care residence shall be permitted in a permanent single family dwelling house within the Residential Type No. 1 (R1), Residential Type No. 2 (R2) and Residential Type No. 3 (R3) Zones provided that it complies with the regulations of the Zone in which it is located and the following:

i) The crisis care residence shall not be located within 250 m of any other crisis care residence, school, or daycare centre; and,

ii) The crisis care residence shall comprise the sole use of the dwelling unit.

36It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the proposal conforms to the intent of the ZBL as there is not another Crisis Care Residence within 250 metres of another Crisis Care Centre, school or daycare. The Proposed Crisis Care Centre will comprise the sole use of the dwelling.

PLANNING ACT

37Mr. Smith took the Tribunal through s. 2 of the Planning Act, which sets forth matters of Provincial Interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard to including:

(h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities; and,

(o) the protection of public health and safety.

38In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the proposed minor variances do have regard for the above noted subsections of the Planning Act. The proposal qualifies as a matter of provincial interest.

THE FOUR TESTS OF A MINOR VARIANCE

Maintain the General Purpose and Intent of the Official Plan

39Mr. Smith stated that the Township Official Plan designated the Subject Lands as being in a “Residential Area” which provides a wide range of housing opportunities. A Crisis Care Residence is one of those forms of housing that is encouraged since it is a form of specialty housing. Mr. Smith opined that the proposal is compatible with the existing development and physical characteristics of the existing neighbourhood. As for the specific variances, Mr. Smith opined that each variance meets the intent of general purpose of the Official Plan:

a. Variance No. 1 - Section 7, Plate C, Row 12, Column H: Request the reduction in the side yard setback to 2.2 metres, whereas 8 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined that this variance allows the proposal to maintain the existing side yard setback with the existing building. The existing building is over 140 years old and predates the Official Plan.

b. Variance No. 2 - Section 7, Plate C, Row 19: Request the reduction of the Minimum Centreline Setback to 10.5 metres, whereas 18.058 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined this variance also maintains the same centreline setback at the existing building and would provide congruency between the addition and existing building.

c. Variance No. 3 - Section 10.1m: Request that the encroachment of unenclosed porches, balconies, steps, or patios of 1.5 metres, whereas 2 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined that this variance will allow for an appropriate design for access to the structure within the boundaries of the Subject Lands.

d. Variance No. 4 - Section 10.18m: Request the amount of nine parking spaces whereas a minimum of 22 parking spaces is required:

Mr. Smith opined the COA conditions that were imposed on their decision can be met at the site plan level. A minimum of 13 parking spaces is required as one of those conditions and Ms. Ge will provide more justification that this variance condition can be met.

e. Variance No. 5 - Section 10.18d.v.: Requested reduction in the parking area design requirements to allow a parking aisle width of 6 metres, whereas 6.7 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined that the request to 6 metres was a nominal change to help provide for adequate off-street parking. The COA imposed a condition, which can be met at the site-plan stage. In his opinion, this variance condition can be met and the proposal is approved by the Tribunal.

f. Variance No. 6: To permit the two existing parking spaces at the front of the existing building.

Mr. Smith opined that this request is to continue to provide adequate off-street parking in an existing location that is appropriate and should continue to be permitted.

40In conclusion, Mr. Smith opined that the variances being requested are to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”)

41Mr. Smith stated that the ZBL permits a Crisis Care Residence, as such, the requested variances do maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. Each variance is explained in more detail below:

a. Variance No.1 - Section 7, Plate C, Row 12, Column H: Request the reduction in the side yard setback to 2.2 metres, whereas 8 metres is required:

Similar to the OP, Mr. Smith opined that the side yard setback request is to maintain the same side yard setback as with the existing building which predates any Zoning By-laws. This provides symmetry to the existing building and the addition.

b. Variance No. 2 - Section 7, Plate C, Row 19: Request the reduction of the Minimum Centreline Setback to 10.5 metres, whereas 18.058 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined that similar to the variance requested for the side-yard setback, this variance maintains symmetry with the existing building and the proposed addition.

c. Variance No. 3 - Section 10.1m: Request that the encroachment of unenclosed porches, balconies, steps or patios of 1.5 metres, whereas 2 metres is required:

Mr. Smith opined that this variance request will allow an appropriately designed access to the dwelling within the boundaries of the Subject Lands, as such, the intent and purpose of the ZBL is maintained.

d. Variance No. 4 - Section 10.18m: Request the amount of nine parking spaces, whereas a minimum of 22 parking spaces is required:

Mr. Smith opined that the conditions of the COA can be met and that the designed proposal will accommodate the requested 13 parking spaces. As such, the requested variance maintains the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

e. Variance No. 5 Section 10.18d.v.: Requested reduction in the parking area design requirements to allow a parking aisle width of 6 metres, whereas 6.7 metres is required:

Mr. Smith stated that the driveway width requirement is to provide adequate aisle width for vehicles to backup when exiting a parking space. Since parking is only on one side of the parking area, vehicles can overhang the east side of the driveway. Therefore, in his opinion, the intent of the aisle of the ZBL is maintained.

f. Variance No. 6: to permit the two existing parking spaces at the front of the existing building.

Mr. Smith opined that these parking spaces already exist at the front of the existing dwelling and will provide two of the 13 required spaces. This variance will allow the continued use of these parking spaces to be permitted and the general intent and purpose of the ZBL is being maintained.

Minor in Nature

42Mr. Smith stated that the minor variances being requested will bring the existing building into conformity with the ZBL. The existing dwelling will no longer be considered “legal non-conforming” if the variances requested were granted. Other than the requested side yard and centreline setbacks being requested, the proposal stays well within all the other property setbacks. The overall height of the proposal is less than the permitted maximum. The proposed addition will be 23 metres from the dwelling to the east. There will be a separation of 11.56 metres from the proposed addition to the Appellant’s dwelling proving there is more than adequate separation between neighbouring properties.

43Mr. Smith opined that the proposal will allow for a compatible development to occur and co-exist in the neighbourhood. The Subject Lands can adequately provide for the requested setback reductions. These setbacks are offset by increased setbacks to the neighbour’s property to the north. The parking variances are reasonable and not functionally vary from the intent of the ZBL.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land

44Overall, Mr. Smith opined that all the variances requested are desirable and an appropriate use of the land as all the variances allow the Subject Property to be developed in a way that will fit into the existing uses of the neighbourhood such as single detached dwellings, medium residential dwellings, a long term care facility and a funeral home. The Subject Lands are within walking distance to the Cannington commercial area.

45Mr. Smith opined that there is a need for a Crisis Care Residence in the Township and this proposal will provide much needed shelter for women in a crisis.

46Mr. Smith’s conclusionary opinions were that the proposed development is a “gentle” form of intensification, and this intensification will complement and fit into the existing neighbourhood.

47The proposal and the minor variances being requested are consistent with the PPS, conform to the GP, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan and the Township Official Plan.

48The minor variances being requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township’s OP and ZBL. The minor variances are desirable, an appropriate use of the Subject Lands and are minor in nature.

49It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the proposal is appropriate, in the public’s interest and represents good land use planning.

Witness No. 2 - Casey Ge

50Samantha Lampert called her second witness, Ms. Ge. Ms. Ge was affirmed and qualified without refute to give profession opinion evidence in the area of transportation engineering. Ms. Ge was retained by the Applicant to provide a parking justification report for the 13 parking spaces recommended as a condition of the COA’s approval of the Application.

51In her witness statement, Ms. Ge took the Tribunal through her assessment of the Application with regards to the proposed parking request of 13 parking spaces – including two barrier free spaces. She demonstrated to the Tribunal that the proposal shows accommodation for eight bedrooms and twelve beds in total. There would be two staff in the facility throughout the day and one staff member at night. Based on her correspondence with other similar Crisis Care Residences, most of the residents are not expected to have a vehicle.

52With a size of 811.5 square metres, the proposal would require 22 parking spaces or 1.8 spaces per bed, as per the ZBL. The Application is asking for relief to a rate of 1.1 spaces per bed, for a total of 13 parking spaces.

53Ms. Ge took the Tribunal through her analysis of three other similar Crisis Centres and the parking surveys that were completed at each centre. All the surveys were taken in one-hour increments from July 21, 2022 and on July 27, 2022, between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Proxy Site	Address	Survey Date	Parking Supply	Number of Beds	Staff Number	Peak Parking	Parking Demand
Women’s Resources/Victoria’s Shelter	22 Russel Street, Lindsay	21-Jul-22	22	18	10	10	0.56
Sandgate Women’s Shelter	855 Lake Drive East, Jackson's Point	21-Jul-22	12	20	8	6	0.30
Bethesda House	121 Queen Street, Bowmanville	28-Jul-22	10*	18	5	9	0.50
Subject Property	124 Laidlaw St S, Cannington		13	12	3	4	0.30
Subject Property	124 Laidlaw St S, Cannington		13	12	3	6	0.50

• 8 marked spaces + 2 illegal parking at the end of the driveway aisle

54The first location was the “Women’s Resources/Victoria’s Shelter” located at 22 Russel Street in Lindsay, Ontario. The Centre has 22 parking spaces, 18 beds and 10 staff. During her observation time of between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. on July 21, 2022 and between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. on July 28, 2022 she observed a maximum parking demand of 10 parking spaces.

55The second location was the “Sandgate Women’s Shelter located at 855 Lake Drive East, Jackson’s Point, Ontario. This Crisis Centre has 12 parking spaces, 20 beds and eight staff. The maximum parking demand of six parking spaces was observed.

56The third and final location was “Bethesda House” located at 121 Queen Street, in Bowmanville, Ontario. This Crisis Centre has 10 parking spaces, 18 beds and five staff. The peak demand was a total of nine parking spaces. This location is the most similar in size and location to the Subject Property.

57Through her analysis, Ms. Ge demonstrated that the average parking demand per bed was between 0.30 and 0.50. Applying these averages to the Proposal before the Tribunal, Ms. Ge opined that the parking demand would be between four and six parking spaces.

58Ms. Ge’s professional opinion was that the proposed 13 parking spaces was sufficient to meet the anticipated demand.

Witness No. 3 - Charles Rosenberg

59Mr. Rosenberg was affirmed and qualified without refute to give professional opinion evidence in the area of architectural design.

60Mr. Rosenberg was hired to design The Nourish and Develop Foundation’s Crisis Centre. He has been the designer of many women’s shelters in the past and has an intimate knowledge of the design features that are needed to make a Crisis Centre.

61He visited the site and reviewed the existing site conditions as well as worked with Mr. Smith (the Applicant’s Planner) to understand the local ZBL requirements. The design of the addition is generally in the centre of the Subject Lands. The height of the addition will be in keeping with the height of the existing building and the houses in the neighbourhood. The actual total lot coverage is 25%, which is well within the 40% maximum lot coverage allowed in the ZBL. The addition will be barrier-free, provide support and amenity spaces, as well as eight bedrooms and some administrative offices.

62Mr. Rosenberg concluded that, in his professional opinion, the design of the Crisis Centre is designed to fit respectfully and safely into the existing community. The proposed addition is key to providing sufficient space for the successful operation of the Crisis Centre. The Crisis Centre will offer a community benefit by supporting some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Kevin Whitelock

63Mr. Whitelock was affirmed to give his lay witness testimony on his concerns about the Application. He showed the Tribunal the zoning of Cannington and stated that comparable buildings to the proposed addition are zoned “Commercial” either “C1” or “C3”. Mr. Whitelock suggested that there is another property that is owned by the same ownership as the Applicant in which could easily accommodate a Crisis Centre. He stated that this location would be more suited than the proposed location.

64Mr. Whitelock stated that his largest concern is the parking. He is concerned that 13 parking spaces is not enough since the ZBL requires 22 parking spaces. Mr. Whitelock stated that he feels that the property is too small for the proposed addition and that the addition will not fit into the existing neighbourhood.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

65In arriving at its Decision, the Tribunal reviewed the material evidence provided and the municipal reports, considered the evidence and opinions of the witnesses, and has given regard to the decision of the COA.

66The Tribunal acknowledges the concerns raised by the Appellant. However, the Tribunal does not recognize nor accept the apprehensions raised by the Appellant as a valid consideration in deciding a planning matter.

67The Appellant did not offer the Tribunal any professional expert evidence to contradict the evidence provided by the Applicant.

68Upon the examination of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal accepts the evidence presented by the Applicant. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has demonstrated through the evidence that the Application is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the GP, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Plan, 2009, and the Township Official Plan.

69It is the finding of the Tribunal that the Applicant has met the criteria as set out is s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the general intent and purpose of the Township Official Plan and the ZBL are being maintained. The minor variances that have been requested are desirable, an appropriate use of the land and are minor in nature.

ORDER

70THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed and the variances to By-law No. 287-78-PL are authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. Provide for a minimum of 13 parking spaces on site;

2. Maintain a drive aisle width of 6.5 metres north of parking space number 6 with a drive aisle width of 6 metres south of parking space number 6 on the applicable drawing provided with the application.

“s. deBoer”

s. deboer

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.