Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2022
CASE NO(S).: PL190617
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1788655 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 4319-09 - Refusal of Application by Niagara-on-the-lake
Existing Zoning: Residential (R1) Zone and Open Space (OS) Zone
Proposed Zoning: Site specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit two single-detached dwelling units
Property Address/Description: 1490 York Road
Municipality: Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake
Municipality File No.: ZBA-21-2018
OLT Case No.: PL190617
OLT File No.: PL190617
OLT Case Name: 1788655 Ontario Ltd. v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
Heard: September 22, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1788655 Ontario Ltd.
Thomas Hanrahan
Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake
Robert Di Lallo
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal under s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act for the refusal by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (“Town”) of an application to amend Zoning By-law No. 4319-09 (“ZBL”) by 1788655 Ontario Ltd. (“Applicant”) for the property municipally known as 1490 York Road (“Subject Site”).
2The purpose of this revised application is to allow for the Applicant to create on the Subject Site three single detached dwellings in a planned condominium on a private roadway. The existing house would be retained with the creation of two new homes are being proposed.
3The Applicant proposes to amend the ZBL for the Subject Site from its current designation of “St. Davids Community Zoning District - Residential (R1) Zone” and “St. Davids Community Zoning District - Open Space (OS) Zone” to a site-specific ZBL with performance standards “St. Davids Community Zoning District - Residential (R1-33-H)” and “St. Davids Community Zoning District - Open Space (OS-33)”.
EXPERT WITNESSES
4The Applicant called two witnesses to give their expert testimony in planning matters.
5Susan Smyth was retained by the Applicant. Ms. Smyth is a qualified urban planner with Quartek Group Inc.
6Rick Wilson is the Manager of Planning for the Town and appeared before the Tribunal under summons by the Applicant.
7Having reviewed the curriculum vita and the Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal is satisfied and qualified Ms. Smyth and Mr. Wilson to give expert evidence in planning matters.
8The Town did not call any witnesses to testify during these proceedings.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
Susan Smyth
9It was the opinion of Ms. Smyth that the creation of the two new dwellings in the proposed development, located in the St. Davids settlement area, is appropriate for development that increases density and offers a mix of housing options to the area.
10Ms. Smyth testified that development on the Subject Site was appropriate as it would utilize existing municipal infrastructure that avoids future uneconomical expansion of municipal services and promotes efficient development patterns.
11St. Davids area is currently not serviced by public transit. It is the opinion of Ms. Smyth that the continued intensification of this settlement area in an appropriate manor of infill developments, that will provide a range of age friendly housing, may contribute to future sustainable transportation modes that include the possibility of public transit.
12It was her opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golder Horseshoe (“GP”).
13The Niagara Region Official Plan (“Niagara OP”) directs future growth development towards existing built-up urban areas. Ms. Smyth informed the Tribunal that the Subject Site was located within a built-up area that is alongside a core natural area. The Tribunal was informed that the proposed development would continue to maintain the designation of the core natural areas on the Subject Site.
14It is the testimony of Ms. Smyth that the proposed development supports the objective of the Niagara OP by providing an infill housing opportunity, that would efficiently use existing municipal infrastructure within a built-up urban area.
15It is the opinion of Ms. Smyth that the proposed development will implement the principles of urban design and represents good land use planning.
Rick Wilson
16Mr. Wilson informed the Tribunal that the planning staff did not support the original proposal of four dwellings located on the Subject Site. However, after discussions with the Applicant regarding the Town’s concerns, Mr. Wilson confirmed that the Town staff did recommend the revised application of three single detached dwellings that includes the existing home fronting onto York Road.
17It was the testimony of Mr. Wilson that the Town staff stands by the recommendations in the November 19, 2019 Staff Report CDS-19-018A. In particular, Mr. Wilson highlighted the zoning provision comparison found in section 4 of the report that states:
Zone Provision
Residential (R1) Zone Standard
Proposed Residential (R1) – Site-Specific
Permitted Use
single detached dwelling
accessory buildings and structures
bed and breakfast establishment
cottage rental
group home
home occupation or a home profession
public use
maximum of 3 single
detached dwellings (condominium units)
accessory buildings and structures
(a)
Minimum lot frontage
18.0 m (60 ft)
18.0 m (60 ft) on a private road, except where a condominium unit is located at the termination of a private road the minimum unit frontage is 6 m (19.7 ft)
(b)
Minimum lot area
668 m2 (7190.5 ft2)
525 m2 (5,651 ft2) for a condominium unit
(c)
Maximum lot coverage
33%
maximum building footprint of dwelling and garage per condominium unit - 222 m2 (2,390 ft2)
(d)
Minimum landscaped open space
30%
40% per condominium unit
(e)
Minimum front yard setback
6.0 m (19.69 ft)
3.0 m (9.8 ft) from a private road minimum setback from York Road lot line - 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
(f)
Maximum front yard setback
7.5 m (24.6 ft)
not applicable
(g)
Minimum front yard setback to front face of the attached garage
8.5 m (27.88 ft)
6.0 m (19.7 ft) from a private road
(i)
Minimum exterior side yard setback
4.5 m (14.76 ft)
minimum setback from York Road lot line - 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
(j)
Minimum rear yard setback
7.5 m (24.6 ft)
minimum setback of 10 m (32.8 ft) from stable top of bank for dwelling and garage, except a minimum setback of 8.5 m (27.9 ft) from the stable top of bank is required for any additions to the existing dwelling on the land
(l)
Minimum dwelling floor area
125 m2 (1345.5 ft2)
114 m2 (1,227 ft2)
(m)
Maximum building height
10.0 m (32.8 ft)
9.1 m (30 ft)
(n)
Minimum accessory building yards setback
1.5 m (5 ft)
1.5 m (5 ft), except a setback of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) is required from the stable top of bank
(o)
Minimum accessory building exterior side yard setback
4.5 m (14.76 ft)
Accessory buildings are not permitted in the yard abutting York Road
It was the opinion of Mr. Wilson that the revised application addressed the concerns of the Town staff, meets the intent of the Town and Region of Niagara planning policies, has regard to provincial policies, and represent good urban planning.
DISPOSITION
18In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Ms. Smyth and Mr. Wilson. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land patterns, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, contributes to the range of housing options and ensures effective use of existing infrastructure.
19The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the GP, and as maintained by the Niagara OP and the Town’s OP. The 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.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the municipality is directed to amend By-law No. 4316-09 as set out in Attachment “1” to this Order.
“Steven Cooke”
Steven cooke
VICE-CHAIR
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.
PL190617 – Attachment 1