Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 30, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003835
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 6(2) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 26, as amended
Owner: Paul Cooper
Expropriating Authority: Corporation of the City of Barrie
Property Address/Description: 922 Veteran’s Drive
Municipality: City of Barrie
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003835
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003835
OLT Case Name: Paul Cooper v. Barrie (City)
Heard: September 21, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| City of Barrie | E. Rizwani |
| Paul Cooper | A. Quinn |
REPORT DELIVERED BY D.S. COLBOURNE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Tribunal conducted a hearing of necessity on September 21, 2022, under s. 7 of the Expropriations Act. The property in question is located at the intersection of McKay Road and Veteran’s Drive, which is located in a part of the City of Barrie (“City” or “Expropriating Authority”) annexed from the Township of Innisfil (“Township”), under the Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act of 2015.
2Since that time the area annexed has been the subject of an Infrastructure Master Plan for the purpose of preparing plans for water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation infrastructure to manage the substantial forecasted growth expected.
3As proposed in the Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan, the City initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (“EA”) study for transportation improvements. The EA process for a Schedule C Municipal Class EA was followed with the required public meetings or Public Information Centres.
4Currently, McKay Road and Veteran’s Drive are two-lane rural roads with ditches, 7 metres (“m”) of pavement and 2.5 m of gravel shoulders, all in a 20 m right-of-way (“ROW”). This is a signalized intersection with two lanes in all directions and no auxiliary turning lanes.
5As set out in the Notice of Grounds and supported by the evidence of Dan Fox on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the preferred alternative designs for McKay Road and Veteran’s Drive adopted a ROW configuration, which included sidewalks, bike lanes, and centre median lanes. As well, the modelling for the traffic volumes projected indicated that these roads would be major arterials. Capacity analysis demonstrated the need for five-lane (34 m, ROW) roadway configuration on both roads to support immediate growth, and in the future, seven lanes (41 m, ROW) for McKay Road. This would take into account subsequent phases of commercial and residential development, as well as other planned road improvements for the area.
6Another significant design conclusion was the need to raise the vertical profile of both roads by approximately 2-3 m to accommodate stormwater drainage.
7Mr. Fox’s evidence, on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, outlining all of the foregoing, was also that in order to construct the Project in accordance with the master plans, Environmental Service Review, and Detailed Design, the planned roadway and slope grading will encroach significantly onto the subject property. It will cut into the existing dwelling, making it impossible to safely access and/or occupy the dwelling.
8The Project involves significant municipal underground services with specialty construction crews working at different times throughout the duration of the Project. Thus, given the proximity of the dwelling to the proposed work zone, maintaining occupancy and safe access during all phases of construction would prohibit the work proceeding safely, if at all.
9In all designs for roads and intersections, Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide for roads sets an industry standard which restricts arterial access to a minimum distance of 70 m from a signalized intersection. Any private access would be prohibited for this property after construction, and provision for that distance from the intersection.
10The access driveway indicated on the construction drawings apparently was for the Expropriating Authority’s purposes when they were in possession of the property, and were not indicative of any proposed private access.
11All of this in the Expropriating Authority’s view supports the taking of the whole of the property, Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Plan 51R-43260, for the purposes of constructability, and not just Parts 2 and 3, as suggested by the evidence of Dominic Conforti. There is a significant slope in the proposed design of the roadway for purposes of drainage to the ditch, which is what would extend into the existing dwelling located on Part 1 of the survey.
[12