Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc. v. Pickering (City), 2022 CanLII 28176

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001452

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Variance from By-law: 2912/88

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: P/CA 58/21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001452

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

OLT Case Name: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc. v. Pickering (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Variance from By-law: 2912/88

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: P/CA 59/21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001453

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Variance from By-law: 2912/88

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: P/CA 60/21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001454

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Variance from By-law: 2912/88

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: P/CA 61/21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001455

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: LD 097/2021

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001479

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: LD 098/2021

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001480

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc.

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 1383 Rougemount Drive

Municipality: City of Pickering

Municipal File No.: LD 099/2021

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001481

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001452

Heard: February 24, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Wiltshire Eccleston Development Inc. ("Appellant") Matthew Di Vona

City of Pickering ("City") No one appeared

The Regional Municipality of Durham ("Region") Cindy Boyd

DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO AND S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Appellant applied to the Region’s Land Division Committee (the “LDC”) to sever three lots from an existing residential lot at 1383 Rougemount Drive (the “subject lands”) that would result in four residential lots (three newly formed lots and one retained lot).

2The subject lands are within a two-tier municipal approval system, where the Region and their LDC are the approval authority for Consents within the Region. The Appellant sought the Consents to facilitate the development and construction of four single-detached dwellings on the subject lands.

3Further required and sought by the Appellant were Minor Variances (the “MVs”) for each of the four lots proposed and relief from the City’s Zoning By-law No. 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law No. 2912/88 (the “ZBL”) to allow for the construction of the four proposed dwellings. The approval authority for the MVs is the City and their Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”)

4With four proposed dwellings, the Appellant had submitted four applications to the C of A, requesting the following MVs:

P/CA 58/21 – Part 1

The Appellant requested relief from the ZBL to permit:

• a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres (“m”), whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 m;

• a minimum south side yard of 1.5 m, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 m; and

• a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 m into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 m into any required yard.

P/CA 59/21 – Part 2

The Appellant requested relief from the ZBL to permit:

• a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 m, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 m;

• a minimum north side yard of 1.5 m, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 m; and

• a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 m into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 m into any required yard.

P/CA 60/21 – Part 3

The Appellant requested relief from the ZBL to permit:

• a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 m, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 m;

• a minimum north side yard of 1.5 m, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 m; and

• a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 m into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 m into any required yard.

P/CA 61/21 – Part 4

The Appellant requested relief from the ZBL to permit:

• a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 m, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 m;

• a minimum south side yard of 1.5 m, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 m; and

• a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 m into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 m into any required yard.

5The C of A met September 8, 2021 and denied all four applications as it felt the MVs were not appropriate or desirable and did not meet the purpose and intent of both the City and Regional Official Plans (the “OPs”) and the ZBL.

6The Region’s LDC met on September 13, 2021 to consider the three Consent applications of the Appellant.

7The LDC refused the applications and cited prematurity of the Consents in light of the recent denial of the MVs by the City’s C of A. Without approval of the MVs, the ability of the proposed lots to conform with the Regional OP was not possible at that time.

8The Appellant chose to exercise their statutory rights to appeal, pursuant to the Planning Act (the “Act”), s. 53(19) and s. 45(12).

THE HEARING

9The City advised the Tribunal through correspondence that they would not be attending or taking a position on the matter at these proceedings.

10Counsel for the Region was present at the Hearing. Counsel advised the Tribunal that the Region and the Appellant resolved their issues and stated that subject to agreed upon conditions provided for the Tribunal’s consideration being imposed, the Region supports the Consents requested by the Appellant. Counsel advised the Tribunal that the conditions of the Region were provided on consent of the Region and the Appellant, and on that basis the Region does not take a position on other matters before the Tribunal. Counsel remained at the Hearing to provide any clarity the Tribunal might require or in case any issues arose that the Region wished to speak to.

11Four written requests for Participant status were received by the Tribunal from nearby residents. One of the four Participant requests, Oliver Rohn, a neighbouring resident submitted an additional request for Party status.

12Initially, the Tribunal dealt with the three other Participant status requests. It heard no objections or concerns from Counsel and was satisfied that the requests met the requirements of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Tribunal Rules”), specifically Rule 7.7. As such, Perry and Loraine Vivian, Michael and Jeanine Soligo and Artur Gevorgyan were granted Participant status.

13The Tribunal seeking some clarity of Mr. Rohn, inquired of his intentions and level of preparation for the proceedings. Mr. Rohn responded that he had no witnesses present that he intended to call and was not seeking to provide any additional evidence other than that provided in his status requests. He did however, wish to be heard and provide some clarity and some context to his concerns.

14The Tribunal having considered the status requests of Mr. Rohn, found that he did not meet the criteria of Tribunal Rules 8.2 to be provided Party status at these proceedings; however, he did meet the provisions of Tribunal Rule 7.7, and thus, Participant status was provided to Mr. Rohn.

15The Tribunal further considering Mr. Rohn’s request to be heard at these proceedings, elected to allow him to act in a witness capacity, as set out in s. 18 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, which reads,

18 (1) At any stage of a proceeding, the Tribunal may,

(a) examine any of the following persons:

(i) a party to the proceeding,

(ii) a witness in the proceeding, or

(iii) a person who has made a submission to the Tribunal with respect to the proceeding, other than a party;

The witness would be heard and cross-examined if Counsel wished. Hearing no objections from Counsel, the Tribunal proceeded in this manner.

16Following the status requests, Counsel for the Appellant provided the Tribunal a brief opening submission and overview of the Consents and Variances sought. This included the historical evolution of the proposal, highlighting that both City and Region staff supported the proposal in principle, which was followed by a brief discussion of the ‘As-of-Right’ permissions allowed on the subject lands.

17Counsel then introduced the witness, Paul Demczak, to support the Appellant’s current proposal.

18Provided to the Tribunal was the witness’ Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) and Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty Forms in Tabs 40 and 41 of the Applicant Document Book (Exhibit 2). Having reviewed the contents and heard a brief description of his qualifications and background, the Tribunal duly swore and qualified the witness to provide expert opinion evidence in land-use planning.

Statutory Tests Required

19The Tribunal is tasked to determine if the Consents sought by these appeals have regard to Provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act and satisfy all applicable criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act. Also, the Tribunal must determine consistency of the proposal with Provincial interests as set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”) and conformity with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act.

20The Tribunal must also determine that the MVs sought are consistent with the PPS and further meet the four tests as set out by s. 45(1) of the Act.

21More specifically, the Tribunal must determine whether:

i. the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the City and Regional OPs;

ii. the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

iii. the variances are minor in nature; and

iv. the variances are appropriate and desirable.

Planning History and Chronology

22The C of A met on July 14, 2021 with the Appellant’s four applications before them. City Planning staff had provided a report to the C of A (the “Planning Report”), recommending approval of the applications subject to conditions. Through discussions and having heard many delegations from the public voicing concerns with the proposal, the C of A deferred the applications to allow for the Appellant and public to have further dialogue and to provide more detailed information.

23The Appellant held two open house public meetings on July 29 and August 23, 2021 to allow for questions and provide information. Approximately 20 residents attended the virtual open houses held on the matter. Discussions included but were not limited to, the public preference being two or three lots as opposed to four, more open space being provided, ‘As-of-Right’ dwellings allowed on the subject lands with no planning approvals necessary and dwellings being as large as 10,000 square feet (“sq. ft.”).

24The C of A met September 8, 2021, with the Appellant choosing to not make any changes and seek the same relief requested on July 14, 2021. The Planning Report before the C of A remained the same and provided a positive recommendation of approval for the MVs. The C of A instead denied all four applications, citing the C of A felt the MVs were not appropriate or desirable and did not meet the purpose and intent of both the OP and ZBL.

25As has been indicated, the Region’s LDC met on September 13, 2021 to consider the three Consent applications of the Appellant.

26The purpose of the applications was to permit the severances and creation of three additional residential lots (totaling four vacant parcels) ranging between 934.5 square metres (“m²”) to 936.3 m². Two lots (one of which included the retained parcel) proposed vehicular access points off Rougemount Drive, whereas the remaining two lots proposed access points off Rouge Hill Court.

27Regional planning staff was generally supportive of the Consents as proposed, subject to conditions. However, with the denial of the MVs by the City C of A, days prior to the LDC meeting, the recommendation of Regional planning staff was that applications LD 097/2021 to LD 099/2021 be deemed premature until the Appellant could demonstrate that zoning compliance could be obtained for the proposed lots.

28With the Appellant already intending to appeal the decision of the C of A, the representative of the Appellant requested that the Consents, if not being approved at the September 13, 2021 meeting be denied so that the Consents and MVs could be dealt with jointly on appeal to the Tribunal. The LDC subsequently denied the applications of the Appellant.

Location and Site Context

29Number 1383 Rougemount Drive is located in the south-west part of the City, in the Rougemount Neighbourhood within Ward 1. The subject lands are a through-lot with 30.44 m of frontage on Rougemount Drive, and 3,739.50 m² (40,241.64 sq. ft.) in lot area. The subject lands are currently vacant.

30The subject lands are bound by the following:

• To the north: existing residential neighbourhood;

• To the south: Rouge Hill Court., existing residential neighbourhood, commercial/retail plaza, and Kingston Road;

• To the west: Rougemount Drive, and existing residential neighbourhood;

• To the east: Rouge Hill Court, existing residential neighbourhood, and South Petticoat Ravine.

31The immediate neighbourhood is a predominantly large estate-style residential subdivision neighbourhood that has been organically developed and is currently changing with a variety of architectural styles. The immediate surrounding context has experienced redevelopment with new custom home rebuilds in recent years.

Sections 2 and 51(24) of the Planning Act

32Mr. Demczak brought the Tribunal to the Planning Rationale Report provided in Tab 16 of Exhibit 2. He and his firm conducted an in-depth analysis of the area and proposal, which included existing lot fabric and sizes, Provincial and local policy review and specific analysis of the Consents and MVs sought.

33Pertaining to s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Demczak cited:

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

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(r) the promotion of built form that,

(i) is well-designed,

(ii) encourages a sense of place, and

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

34In reference to s. 51(24), Mr. Demczak cited relevant subsections as follows:

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services.

35Mr. Demczak opined that the proposal is a modest infill development supporting Provincial direction. It is located in a settlement area that is well-serviced and suitable for the proposed scale of development. Further he opined, the proposal is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, is high quality, attractive and vibrant.

36It was Mr. Demczak’s opinion that the proposal has regard to the relevant subsections of s. 2 of the Act and the Consents meet the applicable subdivision criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan

37It was the opinion of Mr. Demczak that the proposal is consistent and maintains Provincial interest as required by the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan.

38Regional planning staff had identified that the subject lands are located within a settlement area, which promotes infill development and takes advantage of existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The PPS and Growth Plan support opportunities to provide a range of housing and encourages growth within settlement areas, through intensification and redevelopment. The PPS supports the optimization of land and resources by promoting opportunities for intensification and redevelopment.

39In accordance with Policy 2.2.2.2 of the Growth Plan, a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually in the Region must be within the “Built-up Area”. The Growth Plan also requires all intensification areas to support vibrant neighbourhoods by providing a diverse and compatible mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, as well as convenient access to local stores, services and public service facilities.

40Mr. Demczak opined that the proposal was consistent with s. 1.1.3.1 of the PPS that states “Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development”. With the proposal being a minor and appropriate level of infill development, he specified that it is in keeping with the character of the established area. Further, the witness highlighted similarly to s. 2.1(d) of the Growth Plan, development will be directed to settlement areas, except where the policies of the Plan permit otherwise.

41Both Regional planning staff and Mr. Demczak concluded that the subject lands are within an established neighbourhood in the City. The proposed development will contribute to achieving more compact complete communities, as well as advancing the City’s and Region’s intensification targets. The proposed development will also complement surrounding built form within the neighbourhood. Thus, the opinions provided were that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and the Four Tests

Do the proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

42Mr. Demczak highlighted that the subject lands has the designation ‘Living Areas’ in the Regional OP, and that these areas accommodate the widest variety of types of accommodation. It was his opinion that as the proposed development featured infill intensification, with the addition of four dwellings on a currently vacant lot, and is consistent with the Regional OP.

43Regarding the City OP, Mr. Demczak referred to s. 2.7, drawing attention to the following subsections which state the Urban Goals:

(a) encourage a variety of uses in close proximity to one another through a well designed, compact urban form;

(b) make efficient use of infrastructure, land and services, and facilitate local economic and social interactions between people;

(c) increase overall the number and variety of housing, employment, educational, cultural, recreational, and other opportunities and experiences within the urban area;

(g) improve the physical design of neighbourhoods, streets and the public realm, making them safer, more attractive, more comfortable, more human in scale, and more respectful of cultural and natural heritage.

Mr. Demczak opined that the proposal helped to contribute to these goals.

44The witness explained to the Tribunal that the subject lands are in the “Rougemount Community” and that the proposal would be supporting that community’s population target of 3,400 persons for 2016, as identified in the City OP.

45Mr. Demczak highlighted that s. 3.9 identifies the subject lands as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” which are to be use primarily for housing and related uses.

46The witness emphasized s. 6.1 of the City OP, which encourages a broad variety of housing, and s. 6.5 which directs Council to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure through infill development.

47Mr. Demczak referred to s. 9.2, which encourages developments designed to fit their contexts “by considering the mix of uses, and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent buildings”.

48Further he highlighted to the Tribunal that in Chapter 12 of the City OP, “Rougemount” is identified as Neighbourhood 5, and s. 12.7 specifically identifies Rougemount Drive as an area where new infill development is encouraged to be compatible with the character of existing development.

49Mr. Demczak explained that Council had approved Amendment 40 to the City OP, which provided consideration, via the addition of Policy 3.9 (f) to the character of ‘Established Neighbourhood Precincts’ such as Rougemont. Council also adopted ‘Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts’ (the “Urban Design Guidelines”). He opined that the latter considered the goals and objectives of urban design for infill housing, including points like reinforcing existing side lot setbacks, front yard setbacks, lot widths, ensuring that garages were flush with or behind so not dominant in the façade and encouraging the preservation of mature trees.

50Mr. Demczak shared with the Tribunal an Urban Design Guideline Checklist from the City that he completed. It was his expert opinion that the intent and objectives of each item listed was individually and appropriately addressed with regard to the proposed development.

51Mr. Demczak stated that the proposal had been reviewed against the Urban Design Guidelines which is required by the City OP. He opined that the proposal was consistent with said guidelines regarding dwelling heights, depths, roof pitches, stairs and entrances, which will match the scale of the surrounding dwellings.

52The witness highlighted the two City Planning Reports to the C of A (July 2021 and September 2021), in which staff comment that the proposal conforms to the intent of the City OP.

53Mr. Demczak opined in summary that the proposal is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the City OP, as well as the Regional OP, and thereby meets the first test of a minor variance.

Does it meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

54Referring to the ZBL, the witness explained that the City’s ZBL No. 3036 and associated amending ZBL No. 2912/88 zones the subject lands as “One-Family Detached Dwelling Third Density Zone” (R3).

55Mr. Demczak shared that the intent of the minimum lot frontage is to ensure the maintenance of the pattern and character of lots within a neighbourhood. He explained that the ZBL requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 m, and the proposed frontages range from 15.18 m to 15.34 m.

56Mr. Demczak referred to an analysis of lot frontages in which he looked at 51 lots within the immediate neighbourhood context. His findings as outlined in the August 2021 Planning Justification Report showed that 58% (30 of 51) of the lots analyzed did not comply with the lot frontage provision of the ZBL.

57The witness also highlighted to the Tribunal that two of the Participants with properties on Rouge Hill Court have lot frontages of 14.85 m and 15.01 m, which are obviously smaller than the proposed lots would be.

58In Mr. Demczak’s opinion, the proposed lot frontages are consistent with the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

59Regarding the side yard setback provision in the ZBL, Mr. Demczak explained that the intent is to ensure spacing is adequate to allow drainage and maintenance, as well as to allow sky-view and sunlight.

60The witness stated that the required side yard setback is 1.8 m, and the proposal features internal side yard setbacks of 1.52 m – 1.7 m. He noted that the side yard setbacks to the north and south of the proposal comply with the ZBL and therefore do not impact the existing dwellings.

61Mr. Demczak explained that there are existing examples of side yard setbacks that are less than those in the proposal and that reductions in side yard setbacks do exist within the neighbourhood. Therefore, he opined the proposed side yard setbacks are consistent with the character of the neighbourhood and meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

62Regarding the proposed chimney breasts, the witness stated that the proposed encroachment would not affect drainage or maintenance and are therefore consistent with the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

63In summary and based on the evidence presented, it was Mr. Demczak’s expert opinion that the proposed variances are consistent with the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Is it minor in nature?

64Mr. Demczak opined that the variances proposed would not have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding properties or on the general streetscape.

65With regard to the minimum lot frontage, in Mr. Demczak’s opinion, the proposed variances are similar to frontages that exist within the neighbourhood and as such are considered minor.

66Mr. Demczak also pointed out that the proposed variances to lot width allow the creation of four lots that are more consistent with the character of the neighbourhood than the current frontage of 30.44 m. He opined that one, two or three large buildings on the existing site (options discussed at the public meetings) would have a denser built form and massing than what is proposed and thereby would have a negative visual impact individually and overall to the streetscape.

67Mr. Demczak also stated that the proposed side yard setbacks are consistent with others found in the neighbourhood and for that reason should be considered minor in nature.

68Regarding the proposed chimney breasts, the witness explained that the proposal encroaches 0.2 – 0.3 m beyond the permitted amount. Mr. Demczak stated that each chimney breast was located on the south side of each building to prevent the creation of a pinch point. He opined that there would be no impact on function, nor impact to neighbours and as such should be considered minor.

69In conclusion, Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed variances should be considered minor in nature.

Is it desirable and appropriate?

70Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed variances regarding lot frontages are similar to what already exists in the neighbourhood and would not result in development that is significantly different from the surrounding streetscape.

71Regarding the variances required for the side yard setbacks, the witness opined that there would be no significant impact to the community character or surrounding streetscape.

72He explained that:

The prevailing character of building typology is being maintained, and the proposed massing, scale, setbacks, and landscaping that are summarized within the new Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and Urban Design Guidelines are being maintained with no negative impacts to adjacent properties or within the neighbourhood.

73Mr. Demczak clarified that the proposal limits the impacts related to privacy, shadowing and overlook. He stated that the proposal supports the established patterns within the neighbourhood relating to side yard setbacks, separation between dwellings, lot widths and front yard setbacks.

74The witness also explained that the proposal features garages which are flush with and behind the front main walls and therefore do not dominate the width of the façade.

75For the reasons stated above, Mr. Demczak opined that the proposal is desirable and appropriate for the area.

76Concluding his opinions on s. 45(1) of the Act and the proposal’s assessment against the four tests, Mr. Demczak opined that the variances before the Tribunal:

i. meet the general intent and purpose of the Regional and City OPs;

ii. meet the general intent and purpose of the applicable ZBL;

iii. are minor in nature, and;

iv. are desirable and appropriate.

77In summary it was Mr. Demczak opinion that his oral, written and visual evidence substantiates the general intent and purpose of both OPs and the ZBL will be maintained with the proposed development. He opined that the proposal has regard to Provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with relevant policies of the PPS and conforms to the Growth plan. Further, it was the opinion of the witness that no negative impacts will be felt by the proposal, that the variances are minor, and that the modest infill development proposed is compatible and augments the existing and evolving area which makes the proposal desirable and appropriate, and thus represents good planning in the public interest.

Participants

78The primary concerns cited on the Participant statements provided to the Tribunal focused on upholding the refusal of the C of A. The Participants stated that the proposed MVs fail the four tests of the Act. Other concerns raised focused on lot fabric and compatibility, as well as the proposal being too dense and out of character for the area. Further concerns cited the homes being too large and the disruption to the area during construction.

79Mr. Rohn shared some historical context for the area and explained that the neighbourhood was a mixture of new and old homes. He clarified that he was speaking specifically to the Rougemount Drive neighbourhood, which was considered the ‘Bridle Path’ of the City, was zoned R3 with 60 ft. (18.29 m) lot frontages and had been given a special designation by Council.

80Mr. Rohn stated that he did not have concerns with the Rouge Hill Court part of the proposal and stated that neighbourhood was not part of the special designation.

81Mr. Rohn cited concerns with the proposed variance to the minimum lot frontage which he stated was not in character with the Rougemount Drive neighbourhood. He highlighted to the Tribunal that the community would approve of a larger build and that an 8,000 to 10,000 square foot dwelling was being constructed directly across from the subject lands.

82Mr. Rohn reiterated his concern that the lot frontage was less than required by the R3 designation, stated that there was no need to put the chimney breasts where they were, and highlighted that the builder could have considered other options.

83The Tribunal asked Mr. Demczak to respond to Mr. Rohn’s concerns. Mr. Demczak highlighted that from a planning perspective, in the City OP, both Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court are within the Urban Residential Area category and are both Low Density Areas.

84Mr. Demczak further explained that regarding the ZBL, Rougemount Drive was in the R3 zone which permits one-family dwellings, and that through his analysis he had not identified and was not aware of any special planning designation for the area, particularly any in-force at this time. It was Mr. Demczak’s opinion that from a land-use planning perspective, all in-force planning documents and instruments have been reviewed and the proposed development is in keeping and adheres to policies relevant to the area and specifically the subject lands.

85Having reviewed the Participant statements provided and heard from Mr. Rohn, the Tribunal is satisfied the evidence heard and submissions provided have taken into account the concerns and issues cited by the Participants. The Tribunal made clear at the Hearing, that regard was given to the Decision of the C of A; however, the matter was now before the Tribunal as a Hearing de novo, and as such the totality of the evidence provided for this matter would be considered, with appropriate weight given to the expert testimony provided.

Findings and Analysis

86The Tribunal is satisfied with the uncontroverted expert evidence of Mr. Demczak in support of the variances and severances sought by the Appellant. This is further augmented with both the City and Regional Planning Reports found in Exhibit 2, that were generally supportive of the proposal.

87The Tribunal finds that the proposed streetscape and lot fabric abutting both Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court are compatible, and the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are desirable and appropriate for the neighbourhood and for the residential use of the land.

88The Tribunal has determined that the proposal has met and has regard to Provincial interest in s. 2 and the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the subject lands, as may be required in s. 53(1) of the Act.

89The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is compatible and fits in harmoniously with the character of the area. Further, the Tribunal finds that the proposal provides and adds to the adequate provisions of a full range of housing, orderly development of safe and healthy communities and is an appropriate location for growth and development. The proposal maintains the purpose and intent of the OPs and the subject lands are considered a suitable location for infill development that is supported by existing municipal infrastructure.

90The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan, as well as the City and Regional OPs. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal represents development that is considered to be a minor infilling of an under-utilized property, that is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.

91The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence provided in evaluating the four tests set out in the Act is sufficient and provides the Tribunal the ability to determine that the proposal and MVs sought:

i. do meet the general intent and purpose of the Regional and City OPs;

ii. do meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

iii. are minor in nature; and

iv. are appropriate and desirable.

Proposed Conditions of Approval

92The Tribunal has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval provided at this Hearing and has determined them to be sufficient and appropriate for provisional approval of the Consents and Variances sought.

ORDER

93THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consents are to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment “1” to this Order. The owner shall have two (2) years from the issuance of this Order to clear the conditions of approval.

94THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and variances to By-law No. 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law No. 2912/88 are authorized as set out in the “relief applied for” column in Attachment “2” to this Order.

95THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the approval of the provisional consents, are to be in substantial conformity to Attachment “3” attached to this Order.

“M. Russo”

M. russo

MEMBER

“S. Bobka”

s. bobka

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.

OLT-21-001452 – Attachment 1

Consent Conditions of Approval

THAT Provisional Consent for appeals be granted, subject to the following conditions:

Regional Planning and Economic Development Conditions:

i. A clearance letter from the City of Pickering acknowledging that the retained and severed parcels comply with the requirements of the City’s Zoning By-law;

ii. Additional environmental soils and ground water investigation work that satisfies the requirements of the Region of Durham’s Soil and Groundwater Assessment Protocol (SGAP);

iii. An Archaeological Site Assessment and a clearance letter from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) for the work conducted;

iv. A Noise Impact Study, and enter into a Land Titles Agreement with the Region, which registers any recommended warning clauses on title;

v. A letter from the applicant confirming that the subject Land Division Applications (LD 097/2021 to LD 099/2021) will be completed in chronological order; and

vi. A cover letter with the associated supporting materials, demonstrating how Conditions i) and vi) have been addressed.

Regional Works Conditions:

In order to satisfy the Regional Works Department conditions, the applicant will be required to fulfil the following:

i. Payment for 4 sanitary service connections at $3,843.00 per connection (flat rate): = $15,372.00.

ii. Payment for 4 water service connection at $3,700.00 per connection (flat rate): = $14,800.00.

iii. Payment for Sanitary Sewer Frontage at $507 per metre. ($507x30.44): = $15,433.08.

Administrative Conditions:

i. That the applicant submits two copies of a registered plan on the subject parcel.

ii. Provisional Consent of the three applications are subject to the following time periods:

If information is required in an accessible format, please contact Susanne Maurer at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2083.

• Last date for fulfilling Conditions: Two years from date of approval

• Expiry Date of Applications LD 097/2021 to LD 099/2021: Two years and 1-month date of approval

iii. Land division applications must be completed in chronological order (LD 097/2021 to LD 099/2021).

OLT-21-001452 – Attachment 2

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

OLT-21-001452 – Attachment 3