River Park Village Corp. v. Cambridge (City), 2022 CanLII 32471

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001096

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Existing Designation: Proposed Designated: Purpose: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipality File No.: OLT Case No.: OLT File No.: OLT Case Name:

River Park Village Corp.

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Cambridge to adopt the requested amendment

Gault City Centre

Gault City Centre

To permit a 2-storey addition to an existing 4-storey residential building

151 Main Street

City of Cambridge

R03/19

OLT-21-001096

OLT-21-001096

River Park Village Corp. v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

River Park Village Corp.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 150-85 - Refusal or neglect of City of Cambridge to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

C1RM1 4.1.178

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose:

To permit a 2-storey addition to an existing 4-storey residential building

Property Address/Description:

151 Main Street

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

Municipality File No

R03/19

OLT Case No.:

OLT-21-001096

OLT File No.:

OLT-21-001097

Heard:

March 21- 24, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

River Park Village Corp. (the “Appellant”)

Analee Baroudi

City of Cambridge (the “City”)

Brian Duxbury Nicole Auty

DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The lands subject to this appeal are known Municipally as 151 Main Street, City of Cambridge (the “City”), Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the “Region”) (the “subject lands”).

2In June 2019, the Appellant applied to amend Zoning By-law No. C1RM1 4.1.178 (the “ZBL”) to permit a two-storey addition on an existing four-storey residential apartment building and to accommodate 40 additional residential dwelling units. Following the submission of the rezoning application, it was determined that an amendment to the Official Plan (the “OP”) was also required.

3The matter before the Tribunal are two appeals submitted by the Appellant related to:

i. Official Plan Amendment (the “OPA”): Add a site-specific policy:

• To increase the maximum building height of five-storeys to permit 6 storeys;
• To increase the maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.0 to permit a FSI of 2.06;
• To permit a 118-unit apartment building.

ii. Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”): Add a site-specific exception:

• To increase the maximum density from 250 units/hectare to permit 385 units/hectare;
• To increase the maximum height from 15 metres (“m”) (49.21 feet (“ft”)) and four storeys to permit 22.5 m (73.82 ft) and six storeys;
• To permit a minimum common amenity area of 10 square metres (“m²”) per dwelling unit;
• To require 0.57 parking spaces/dwelling unit (with total 67 spaces);

Also, additional relief to some of the site development specifications include:

a) That By-law No. 164-00 is repealed as it relates to 151 Main Street, and regulations carried forward to recognize the existing structure

b) Maximum lot coverage 60% of the lot area

c) Minimum landscaped open space 25% of the lot area

d) An access driveway may be provided on adjacent parcels of land

e) No access driveway shall be located within 4 metres of a window of a habitable room of a dwelling unit as measured perpendicular to the wall containing such window.

BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY

4In support of their Applications to the City, the Appellant had provided a Planning Justification Report, Parking Justification Report, building elevation drawings and a draft ZBLA.

5On November 12, 2019, a statutory public meeting was held by the City Planning and Development Committee. An information report, No. 19-261(CD) from City Staff was presented at the meeting.

6To further supplement their Applications, the Appellant provided A Parking Utilization Study-Addendum Letter, dated February 10, 2020, to City staff.

7On January 14, 2021, a Neighbourhood Meeting was hosted by the City. A Neighbourhood meeting is a non-statutory meeting to inform the public about the details of the planning applications and obtain public input. Comments from the public included: parking supply issues, capacity of nearby municipal lots and the availability and cost of residential parking permits, the use of cash-in-lieu of parking, and construction impacts.

8On April 27, 2021, City Staff Report No. 21-028(CD) (the “Planning Report”) recommending approval of the Applications was submitted to City Council. The recommendations read as follows:

a. Approval of OPA No. 45 to the City OP to permit the site to develop at a maximum density of 2.06 FSI, and building height of six storeys for a total of 118 dwelling units;

b. Approval of the ZBLA to change the site-specific zoning on the property from C1RM1 4.1.178 to (H)C1RM1 4.1.395 to permit the intensification of the site with additional height and density, and reduction in parking and amenity area with a Holding provision in place until an agreement for parking and transportation demand measures is registered on title; and

c. Authorization to the Chief Planner to execute an agreement with the owner for cash in lieu of parking for 19 parking spaces, and Transportation Demand Measures to be implemented, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

9City Council did not support the Staff Recommendations and the Applications were refused. Subsequently, In May 2021 the Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the City Council decision to refuse the Applications.

Site Context and Area

10The subject lands are approximately 0.31 hectares (“ha”) (0.78 acres) in area and are located at the southeast intersection of Main Street and Wellington Street South within the Galt City Centre, in the City’s Downtown.

11The site itself is bound by public open roads on three sides with approximately 84.96 metres (“m”) of frontage along Main Street on its north boundary, approximately 30.82 m of frontage along Wellington Street South along its westerly boundary and approximately 29.16 m of frontage along Harris Street at its easterly boundary.

12The subject lands currently contain a four-storey apartment building with a total of 78 one- and two-bedroom dwelling units. Nine of the current units, are defined as affordable dwelling units. The site’s current overall density is 247 units per ha and a FSI of approximately 1.4.

13There are 67 parking spaces on the subject lands. Twenty parking spaces for residents including three (3) accessible parking spaces are located at grade on the westerly portion of the site. The remaining 47 parking spaces for residents are found in the underground parking garage. The existing parking rate for the subject lands is equivalent to 0.86 spaces per dwelling unit (“spaces/unit”). Access to the surface parking lot is provided from two driveways. One driveway provides access from Main Street and another driveway provides access from Wellington Street. Access to the underground parking garage is through the driveway located on the abutting property at 8 Harris Street. There is no street parking permitted adjacent to the site.

14The subject lands are situated in the downtown of the City, in an area known as Galt and surrounded by low- and mid-rise residential, commercial, institutional and office uses, including:

• To the North: A 4-storey building, which is home to The Region’s administrative building, Conestoga College Cambridge campus, and low-rise retail
• To the West: The downtown core, comprised of low-rise commercial buildings along the Main Street corridor. With two municipal parking lots present on the west side of Wellington Street.
• To the East: Existing 2-storey townhouses, a 2-storey single-detached home operating as a home-based business, 6-storey apartment building, and 9-storey apartment building.
• To the South: Immediately south is an existing 4-storey condominium apartment building (8 Harris Street) that shares the same underground parking (separated by a demising wall, with separate vehicular access to the two buildings) as the subject lands. Further southeast, there is a 6-storey apartment building and Central Public School.

15The subject lands are also near the following amenities, transit and public services:

• Centennial Park approximately 78 m due east of the subject lands and its associated Multi-Use Trail connecting to Soper Park adjacent to the Galt Arena Gardens to the northeast;
• Several nearby walkable Transit stops as well as Ainslie Street Terminal. These routes provide service along Hespeler Road, Beverly Street, and Main Street from Cambridge Centre to Ainslie Terminal and provide connections to iXpress adapted bus rapid transit routes which will be replaced by the Stage 2 ION Light Rail Transit (the “LRT”) in the future;
• Central Public School and its associated amenity spaces which have significant frontage along Harris Street approximately 85 m southeast of the subject lands;
• Numerous coffee shops, restaurants, fast food outlets, are located in immediate proximity of the site;
• Historic Cambridge Farmers Market which contains local commercial, and retail uses; and
• Existing cycling infrastructure on Shade Street and planned cycling infrastructure on Main Street and Beverly Street.

STATUS REQUESTS

16The statutory Parties for the Hearing were identified as:

i. The Appellant

ii. The Approval Authority being the City

17The Tribunal received no additional Party status requests in advance of these proceedings, and none were sought viva voce at the Hearing.

18The Tribunal did receive two Participant status requests in advance for its consideration at these proceedings from:

i. Condo Corporation No. 439 Cambridge (8 Harris Street)

ii. Nadia Koltun

19Hearing no objections from the Parties and being satisfied the Participants met the Tribunal requirements to be provided status, the Tribunal granted Participant status and accepted the statements provided as set out in Rule 7.7 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Core Issue

20Although the Parties have identified additional issues and concerns, the core issues in contention at this Hearing of the merits have been considered by the Tribunal and distilled primarily to the reduction in amenity space sought per unit by the proposed development and the parking reduction required with the additional units proposed.

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICIES

21Land use planning in Ontario is a policy-led system implemented in hierarchical fashion. This system is deliberately crafted to recognize that there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to implementing policy framework, given the diversity of Ontario’s local communities. As such, the broader Provincial policies and objectives are to be implemented by each municipality through their OP, ZBLs, issue-specific guidelines, etc.

22In adjudicating these appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Planning Act (the “Act”). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”), pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal must also find that the Proposal conforms with policies of the provincial plan: A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”). Lastly the Tribunal must be satisfied with the proposal’s conformity with both the Regional and City OP, and that it represents good land-use planning in the public interest.

EXPERT WITNESSES

23The Appellant had retained and called two witnesses to provide expert opinion evidence at this Hearing. The Appellant further had obtained a summons from the Tribunal to have the former City Manager of Policy and Planning appear at these proceedings. Each of the witnesses provided an Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty Form and their Curriculum Vitae (“CV”). The Tribunal was asked that they be recognized and qualified as experts in their fields as follows:

i. L. Jayson (Jay) McGuffin – Land-Use Planning;

ii. Richard Pernicky – Parking and Transportation Planning;

iii. Deanne Friess - Land-Use Planning - Present under Summons;

24The City also had retained and called two witnesses to provide expert opinion evidence at this Hearing. They also had provided an Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty Form and their CV. The Tribunal was asked that they be recognized and qualified as experts in their fields as follows:

i. Allan Ramsay – Land-Use Planning;

ii. John McGill – Parking and Transportation Matters;

25No objections were provided by Counsel on the qualifying of the expert witnesses. With its review of the CVs and Expert’s Duty Forms provided, the Tribunal duly affirmed/swore and qualified the witnesses in their respected field.

EXPERT LAND-USE PLANNING WITNESSES

26Prior to this Hearing commencing, the Planning witnesses had collaborated and provided the Tribunal a Planning- Agreed Statement of Facts. They identified undisputed land-use planning aspects, pertaining to the subject lands and uncontested by the Parties.

27Undisputed for this matter, is that under the City OP, the subject lands are:

a) Located with the ‘Built Up Area’ (Map 1A) and a ‘Regeneration Area’ (Map 1A and Map 6).

b) Within a ‘Community Core Area, Galt City Centre’ (Map 2 and Map 3).

c) Subject to a maximum density of 250 units per hectare, a maximum floor space index of 2.0 and a maximum building height of 5-storeys.

28Further the planning witnesses had identified and provided:

Under the City’s current ZBL:

a) Section 3.1.2(1) permits a variety of commercial and multi-residential uses including apartment houses. As per Section 3.1.2(4)(b) apartment houses are permitted to a maximum density of 250 units per hectare. The Appellant is proposing a density of 385 units per hectare.

b) Section 2.1.9 (a) and Map Z7 permit a maximum building height of 15 m. The Appellant is proposing a building height of 22.5 m.

c) Section 3.1.2 (4)(h) requires amenity area based on a minimum of 20 m² per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units and 30 m² per dwelling for 2-bedroom units. The Appellant is not proposing any additional amenity area.

d) Section 2.2.1 (1)(d) and Map Z4 a minimum of 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling, including visitor parking. The Appellant is not proposing any additional parking.

29In 2007 a minor variance application (A29/07) was approved on the subject lands to amenity area requirements for the original 80-unit building and now existing 78-unit building. The variance currently permits a minimum of 10 m² amenity area per one (1)- and two (2)-bedroom dwelling units for the current building.

30In 2014 a minor variance application (A24/14) was approved on the subject lands to reduce parking requirements for the original 80-unit building now existing 78-unit building. The variance currently permits a minimum of 67 parking spaces which is the equivalent of 0.86 parking spaces per dwelling, including visitor parking.

31On January 13, 2022, the Tribunal had issued a Procedural Order (the “PO”) providing guidance and direction for the proceedings. Included was an Issues List, with 12 contested issues the Parties had identified and would be dealt with at the Hearing.

32At the onset of this Hearing, the Parties provided the Tribunal an Amended Issues List, that had deleted three issues with nine (9) issues remaining. Thus, the Planning- Agreed Statement of Facts highlighted that from the original PO and Issues List, the following items have been deleted. Pertaining to Issue 2 and the PPS:

i. Settlement Areas: Sections 1.1.1 (b), (d) to (i) inclusive ,1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.4 and 1.1.3.5, 1.4.3 (a) to (e) inclusive.

ii. Housing: Section 1.4.1 Infrastructure and Public Services Facilities: Section: 1.6.6.2, 1.6.6.7 and 1.6.7.4 Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change: Section 1.8.1.

33Issue 3 dealing with the Growth Plan is not in dispute and can be deleted from the Issues List.

34Issue 4 dealing with the Region OP is not in dispute and can be deleted from the Issues List.

35The following policies of the City OP referred to in Issue No. 5 are not in dispute:

i. Growth Management: Section 2.6.1.6, 2.6.3.4 and 2.8.3.4

ii. Urban Design: Section 5.2, 5.2.1, and 5.14:

iii. Implementation, Height and Density Bonusing: Section 10.16, and 10.16.4.

36Issue 8 dealing with servicing and access is not in dispute and can be deleted from the Issues List.

Planning Witnesses

Issue 1: Do the proposed amendments have regard for the matters listed under s. 2 of the Act?

37Mr. McGuffin opined that the proposed amendments have the appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. He identified subsections (f), (h), (j), (n), (q), (r), and (s) being of particular relevance in support of the appeals.

38Pertaining to subsection (f), Mr. McGuffin gave evidence that the proposed transit-oriented residential intensification is located with existing municipal infrastructure in place and with immediate access and proximity to numerous transit routes including the planned ION LRT which will run adjacent to the site and in short walking distance of two Transit Stations.

39Mr. McGuffin highlighted the proposed development is a vertical extension of the existing apartment building that he opined represents an appropriately scaled and orderly intensification (having regard to subsection (h)) of housing in the City’s Downtown core, in proximity to a wide variety of supporting and complementary land uses.

40The subject lands currently contain a four (4)-storey purpose built rental apartment building with an agreement for the provision of 12% of the existing 78 units for affordable housing. The proposal will intensify the existing building through the vertical addition of two (2)-storeys and 40 additional dwelling units. This in Mr. McGuffin’s opinion, further contributes to a full range of housing (subsection (j)) in the area, which is sought after and particularly important with housing affordability ‘sky-rocketing’ in these present times. Mr. McGuffin referred to this often throughout the Hearing as a ‘housing crisis’ province wide, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area.

41Speaking to subsection (n) and the resolution of planning conflicts, Mr. McGuffin was satisfied the Appellant’s Parking Study and Addendum, both supported and demonstrated the proposed parking ratio is acceptable and is further augmented with the subject lands being so close in proximity to public transit and future higher order transit. Thus, in his opinion the initial planning conflict of parking on-site identified, has been justified and resolved.

42Pertaining to subsection (q), the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. Mr. McGuffin stated the proposed residential intensification builds on an existing residential development in the City’s core in a heavily transit supportive location proximate to numerous public transit alternatives, public sidewalks and protected trails, walkable to employment, service, commercial, institutional and recreation and leisure pursuits. Further, he opined these aspects mentioned have regard to subsection (s), the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the adaptation to a changing climate.

43Mr. McGuffin testified the proposal has regard to subsection (r) the promotion of built form. In his opinion the proposal is well designed and is compatible and complements the existing built form on the subject lands and adjacent buildings. The additional units, being an extension of what currently exists on the subject lands will contribute to an already established sense of place, that he opined typically needs to evolve with new developments, but already exists on the subject lands. Lastly, Mr. McGuffin opined the proposal and subject lands provide sufficient amenity space on-site for both passive and active recreation, that should be considered in conjunction with its downtown location. When given this holistic approach, Mr. McGuffin opined the proposal provides its existing and future residents high quality, safe, accessible and vibrant open space and amenity options.

44Ms. Friess having heard the testimony of Mr. McGuffin and having co-authored the Planning Report recommending approval of the Applications to City Council, agreed and essentially adopted the opinions of Mr. McGuffin pertaining to the Act.

45Mr. Ramsay in contrast had several opposing opinions to those provided by Mr. McGuffin and shared by Ms. Friess. This was well summarized in Mr. Ramsay’s witness statement (Exhibit 16) and provided on the Table below:

Issue 2: Are the proposed amendments consistent with sections 1.1.1 a) and c), 1.1.3.2, and 1.4.3 (f), of the PPS?

46Mr. McGuffin gave evidence that the proposed amendments are consistent with the PPS, including policies 1.1.1 (a) and (c), 1.1.3.2, and 1.4.3 (f). Ms. Friess generally adopted the same opinions and highlighted this in her Planning Report, where she opined the proposal is consistent with the PPS.

47Policy 1.1.1 (a) strives to achieve efficient and resilient development and land use patterns, which sustain the financial well-being of the province and municipality. In Mr. McGuffin’s opinion, the proposed expansion of an existing low-rise residential apartment building represents an appropriate intensification of land and buildings within the existing Built-Up Area and Regeneration Area in the Galt City Centre (City Downtown).

48Mr. McGuffin stated he believes the proposal will accommodate the additional residential growth through the intensification of existing built housing stock that continues to contribute to the expanded range and mix of housing forms in the area, through a compact urban form that will support the planned function of the Galt City Centre as a compact, pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive area.

49Mr. McGuffin testified this form of development conforms to s. 1.1.1 (c), avoiding environmental or public health and safety concerns. The proposal is an extension of an already existing and integrated building within the community.

50Section 1.1.3.2 requires proposals within settlement areas be based on densities and a mix of land uses and patterns which:

a) efficiently use land and resources;

b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;

c) minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency;

d) prepare for the impacts of a changing climate;

e) support active transportation; and

f) are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed

51Mr. McGuffin gave evidence that pertaining to the above policy considerations, the proposal being a vertical expansion of an existing apartment building, provides for the efficient use of land and resources through the intensification of building on an existing footprint. The proposed residential intensification is appropriate for this location as it continues to build on the already established land use on this and neighbouring properties, while utilizing the existing municipal infrastructure already in place. Further, the proposal capitalizes on the proposed LRT Route planned for the area, while already having exceptional transit and active transportation options, literally at its doorstep. These factors combined with the reduced parking onsite (decreasing vehicular use and dependency), will contribute to net improvements in air and water quality nearby and in the general proximity.

52Lastly, s. 1.4.3(f), seeks to establish development standards for residential intensification, which minimizes the cost of housing and facilitates compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. Mr. McGuffin opined that the proposal is consistent with this policy, as it integrates and introduces new compact housing units in an area identified to accept this form of development, while maintaining and augmenting the existing built form. This reduces costs and provides greater affordability to consumers in the midst of a “housing crisis’ in the view of Mr. McGuffin.

53Mr. Ramsay concurred with Mr. McGuffin’s opinion that the proposal is consistent to s. 1.1.1(a), however, disagreed with his opinion pertaining to s. 1.1.1(c). Mr. Ramsay had concerns that the proposal was relying on amenity area(s) that were truly not functional and were located too close and adjacent to public streets that created safety concerns in his opinion. This he felt was compounded with parking concerns, and in his opinion the high likelihood of visitors and or residents parking across the street (in public parking facilities) with limited options onsite, both representing unsafe situations.

54Speaking to s. 1.1.3.2 and the considerations listed above, Mr. Ramsay brought the Tribunal to the conclusion of the policy that reads:

Land use patterns in settlement areas shall also be based on a mix of land uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment in accordance with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3, where it can be accommodated.

55In Mr. Ramsay’s opinion policies s. 1.1.3.2 and s. 1.1.3.3 should be considered in conjunction with one another. In considering them both, he opined the proposed amendments will result in an intensification and redevelopment that cannot be accommodated on the subject lands without significant and inappropriate increases in density and reductions to parking and amenity area regulations. Therefore, he believed the proposal is inconsistent with the policies.

56With respect to s. 1.4.3(f), Mr. Ramsay stated that the proposed increased density along with reductions in parking and amenity requirements will facilitate a compact form of development. However, with the limited amount of amenity area he had concerns regarding public health, as previously indicated. This in his opinion leads to the conclusion that the proposal overall is inconsistent with the PPS.

Issue 3: Do the proposed amendments conform to policies 2.6.1.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.6, 2.8(d), 2.8.2.6, 2.8.3, 5.11, 6.10.4, 8.4.2.2, 8.4.3, and 10.11 of the City OP?

57Mr. McGuffin brought the Tribunal to the s. 2.6.1 of the OP that establishes policies for the Built-Up Area on Map 1A and additional maps, and he highlighted the proposal falls within these areas. These are the City’s intended intensification areas that share the primary objective of attracting a significant portion of growth (s. 2.6.1.3) s. 2.6.1.2 - Intensification is encouraged throughout the Built-Up Area of the City, particularly within the following areas:

a) The Urban Growth Centre (identified on Maps 1A and 3);

b) Community Core Areas (identified on Maps 1A, 3, 4 and 5);

c) Nodes (identified on Figures 1-4);

d) Regeneration Areas (identified on Maps 1A and 6);

e) Re-urbanization Corridors in accordance with Section 2.6.5; and Chapter 2 Growth Management 8 September 2018 Consolidation

f) Major Transit Station Areas in accordance with Section 2.6.6.

58Section 2.6.1.6 identifies criteria that should be planned for and included when intensifying. All three planning witnesses concurred that the proposal meets most of the criteria set out. However, Mr. Ramsay while acknowledging that the proposed development represents a compact form and is transit oriented, deviated from the opinions of Mr. McGuffin and Ms. Friess that the proposal is compatible with the existing or planned uses in the area. In his view, the additional density sought, represents an overdevelopment of the site, that does not meet the parking requirement and outdoor amenity needs and thus, fails to be compatible.

59Mr. McGuffin highlighted that the subject lands are designated as ‘Galt City Centre’ in the OP, which encourages the continued development of higher intensity projects, and a mix of land uses in that area, promoting such elements as mixed-use buildings, intensification and the reuse of existing buildings and infrastructure renewal. The ‘Galt City Centre’ designation also permits a wide variety of mixed uses, including a range of residential, commercial and institutional land uses.

60Mr. McGuffin opined it is important to note that the while the proposal is within the ‘Gault City Centre’ area that permits a maximum FSI of 2.0 and height of five storeys, it is immediately adjacent to the City’s designated Urban Growth Centre with greater allowable densities and no parking requirements. Although he acknowledges, that the proposal is subject to the ‘Gault City Centre’ permissions, one must recognize that the City’s character is not solely defined by these lines. A resident or pedestrian would not realize these defined lines exist, thus, their perception will be influenced and impacted by what exists adjacent to where they are standing or residing.

61Mr. McGuffin brought the Tribunal s. 2.6.3, which are policies relating to Community Core Areas and encourages the use of the Community Core Areas that are developed and designed to reflect the character of the area with well-linked pedestrian and transit-oriented developments that are in keeping with the concept of complete communities. In Mr. McGuffin’s opinion, the proposal conforms to these policies and further bolsters the use of the lands for residential intensification in the heart of the downtown core. He believed the design and massing of the proposal are compatible to the surrounding character of the area, while providing for intensification which is adjacent to key Transit infrastructure and mobility networks, and within walking distance of the river, public open spaces, parks, schools, commercial, retail, public service facilities and opportunities for employment.

62Section 2.6.6 of the OP provides for the Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) policies and include the lands typically located within a 600 to 800 m radius of rapid transit station. The Region will delineate the general alignment of the rapid transit system and designate areas conceptually through a future amendment to the Regional OP and the City will follow. Ms. Friess gave evidence that the MTSA has been delineated by the Region (with the proposal falling within the radius) and the policies associated currently are being worked on. Mr. McGuffin concurred with the opinion shared by Ms. Friess, while Mr. Ramsay questioned if the delineation was indeed finalized at this time.

63Section 2.8 Residential Lands, requires that The City will:

d) establish residential densities which are both appropriate to existing and new neighbourhoods and result in the compact development of the city’s residential lands;

64Section 2.8.2 then goes on to establish the Range and Mix of Housing Types that the City is looking for to accomplish this goal and 2.8.2.6 establishes that:

The City will promote the maintenance of an adequate supply of both ownership and rental housing stock to meet the varying needs of City residents...

65Mr. McGuffin opined the proposal conforms with s. 2.8.2 (and subsections that follow) and appropriately provides what the policies seek to establish. Mr. Ramsay disagreed and believed that the 50% increase in density, from what is existing, represents an overdevelopment of the lands, that in his opinion is supported by the fact that the site cannot meet requirements of the ZBL.

66Mr. McGuffin testified that s. 2.8.3 contains residential density policies of the OP that supports the proposed development and s. 2.8.3.1 reads:

The City will allow compatible higher density residential development in the Urban Growth Centre, Community Core Areas, Nodes, Regeneration Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Transit Station Areas and high density residential designations to support and ensure viability of existing and planned transit service levels.

67Mr. McGuffin differed to Mr. Pernicky for transportation issues but did opine that the existing surface and underground parking facilities conform with s. 5.11 and s. 6.15 in his opinion, and from a land-use planning perspective.

68Section 6.10 of the OP contains policies regarding Public Transit and sub-section 4 states that:

Measures to encourage and/or support transit-oriented development, existing and planned high frequency transit services, such as reductions in the amount of required parking, limiting the amount of surplus parking and considering transportation demand management programs as a community benefit under s. 10.16 of this Plan, may also be used.

69Mr. McGuffin gave evidence; that the subject lands are located in the City’s Downtown core in a heavily transit supportive location on the planned LRT route that will serve to link the City with surrounding municipalities. In his view, the proposal conforms with this policy.

70Section 8.4.2 of the OP speaks to Residential Compatibility and s. 8.4.2.1 states that the:

City will encourage development in the Urban Growth Centre, Community Core Areas, Nodes, Regeneration Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Transit Station Areas and in residential communities which is compatible with the location, density and other characteristics of neighbouring land uses.

71The policy further identified factors to be considered when assessing compatibility that include:

a) the density, scale, height, massing, visual impact, building materials, orientation and architectural character of neighbouring buildings and the proposed development;

b) the conservation, protection, maintenance and potential enhancement of the natural environment and cultural heritage resources;

c) the continued viability of neighbouring land uses;

d) pedestrian and vehicular movement and linkages, as well as parking requirements and design in both existing development and proposed developments;

72Mr. McGuffin throughout his testimony opined that the proposal is compatible to the area, both currently existing and as envisioned. Ms. Friess concurred and shared the same opinion. Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that several factors above were supportive of the proposed development, however, in his opinion not all. Mr. Ramsay opined that the inability of the proposal to meet all factors was a direct result of the overdevelopment of the site and thus, in his opinion fails to be compatible to the surrounding area.

73Mr. McGuffin, gave evidence that all factors above in s. 8.4.2.1 were met and further brought attention to the conclusion of the policy above, that highlights compatibility of not only its own land use area, but neighbouring land uses. This again highlights in his opinion, not only the significance of intensification being envisioned in the area but recognition and importance of the adjacent aspect of the proposal to the Urban Growth Centre.

74Mr. McGuffin also highlighted s. 8.4.2.2 of the OP, that states:

Infill, intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be minor in nature and will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character. The following will be considered in assessing whether the development is minor in nature:

(a) comparable building height, generally within two storeys of neighbouring buildings;

75Mr. McGuffin opined the proposed development of six storeys, being immediately adjacent to an existing four storey building, is indeed minor in nature and in keeping with the above policy. Mr. Ramsay disagreed and stated that the proposal is not minor, as it is 50% higher than what exists currently on-site, and also adjacent at 8 Harris Street.

76Mr. McGuffin brought the Tribunal to s. 8.4.3 of the OP, that outlines ‘Location Criteria’ for siting Multi-Unit Residential Development. Through this policy, “The City will encourage the use of lands in residential designations, Urban Growth Centre, Community Core Areas, Nodes, Regeneration Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and MTSA to provide sufficient units in multi-unit residential development to meet the policies in s. 2.8.2.

77Mr. McGuffin highlighted the proposal is situated within a Community Core Area, Regeneration Area, and an MTSA and adjacent to an Urban Growth Node. He opined the proposal conforms to the above policy and this is reinforced by the fact that the proposal already has existing upon it a multi-unit residential building inline with this policy.

78Pertaining to s. 10.11 and policies relating to Parking. Mr. McGuffin again deferred to Mr. Pernicky, and the Parking Utilization Study to inform his land-use planning opinion. Mr. McGuffin adopted the opinions of Mr. Pernicky on the matter and as such felt that the proposal conforms to s. 10.11.

79Mr. McGuffin concluded with his analysis of the parking evidence and all other Issues (4-9) pertaining to transportation provided by Mr. Pernicky. It is his professional planning opinion that the proposed reduced parking standard of 0.57 is appropriate and relies on the opinions of Mr. Pernicky to arrive to that conclusion and to matters beyond land use planning.

80Mr. Ramsay relied on and adopted the evidence of Mr. McGill pertaining to Issues 4-9.

Land-use planning Witnesses Concluding Opinions

81Mr. Ramsay concluded that the proposal to permit a two-storey addition to the existing four-storey residential apartment building to accommodate 40 additional dwelling units without the provision of additional parking spaces and amenity area:

(i) does not have regard for matters of provincial interest;

(ii) are not consistent with the PPS; and

(iii) does not conform with policies in the City OP.

82In his opinion the proposed development does not represent good planning and should not be approved, and thus the appeals should be dismissed. In the event the Tribunal makes a determination to approve the OPA and ZBLA, it is his recommendation that a holding zone be applied to the site until an agreement requiring the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) measures is registered on the title of the property.

83Ms. Friess in conclusion referred to her Planning Report, where she and City Planning Staff recommended approval of this OPA and ZBLA with a holding provision recommended by City transportation staff, until an agreement was in place for cash-in-lieu of parking and TDM measures. Her opinions remain the same for this Tribunal. In her professional opinion the proposed OPA and ZBLA have regard to s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conforms with the policies of the Growth Plan, the Regional OP, and City OP, while meeting the general intent of the City ZBL and representing good planning.

84Mr. McGuffin similarly to Ms. Friess, concluded that the proposed amendments have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as required by s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan, the Regional OP, and lastly conform to the general intent and purpose of the City OP and the ZBL and represents good planning and should be approved. In his opinion the evidence heard at this Hearing and provided overall, supports the premise that the holding provision is not required and that cash-in-lieu for parking is not a useful TDM measure (as will be discussed further in this decision). Mr. McGuffin concluded that he supports the opinions of Mr. Pernicky relating to any additional TDM measures that may be implemented. However, both he and Mr. Pernicky believe these measures should be considered at the Site Plan Approval stage, and thus, the appeals should be approved as provided in draft form in Exhibit 2.

Parking and Transportation Witnesses

85Both Mr. Pernicky and Mr. McGill were qualified as indicated to provide expert testimony at this Hearing pertaining to parking and transportation matters. Their evidence focused on the following Issues as outlined in the amended Issues List:

a. Issue 4 - Is the proposed parking rate of 0.57 spaces/unit consistent with local parking standards for urban areas?

b. Issue 5 - Does the subject development benefit from the transit area parking rate reduction for the designated transit area?

c. Issue 6 - Are the City's Transportation Demand Management Measures (“TDM”) appropriately applied to this development and do they support the extent of reduction of parking spaces?

d. Issue 7 - Is this an appropriate development for the application of the City's cash in lieu policy and will the amount of cash in lieu requested be sufficient to create any other localized parking that could be utilized by residents or visitors of the development?

e. Issue 8 - What is the impact of this development on neighbouring properties, such as 8 Harris Street, in respect to parking related issues including spill-over parking demand and the availability of other localized parking?

f. Issue 9 - Is it appropriate to apply a reduced parking standard to the subject development where the site has already received a reduced parking rate of 0.86 spaces (unit)?

86Speaking to Issue 4, Mr. Pernicky opined that the current parking requirements of the ZBL are a decade old, and do not reflect the current and realistic parking demand actually required in the area. Expanding on this, Mr. Pernicky highlighted for the Tribunal the subject lands and its in force ZBL, currently have no visitor parking requirements and have parking requirements only pertaining to residents.

87Nextrans Consulting Engineers (Mr. Pernicky’s firm) prepared a Parking Justification/Utilization Study (August 16, 2019) and Utilization Study-Addendum Letter, (February 10, 2020). The study’s findings and recommendations are summarized in the table below:

88In his analysis, Mr. Pernicky opined the proposal’s 67 existing parking spaces, assessed against the proposed density will result in only two deficient spaces from what potentially the needs will be. In his opinion this is negligible and will be negated with the transit availability and active transportation nearby and the overall trend to reduce vehicular dependency and ‘induced demand’ (simply put, using parking because it is there). Thus, in his opinion the proposed 0.57 spaces/unit is acceptable and supported through his firm’s analysis and surveys of the parking utilization study.

89Mr. McGill supported a parking reduction, however, felt from his analysis (assessing car ownership in the City and other local parking rates) he could only support a 0.73 spaces/unit parking requirement. In his opinion, when considering the existing building only has the ability to provide 67 spaces on site, the proposal should either find and secure off-site parking (contractually) or more appropriately in his opinion reduce the proposed density of the development.

90Both witnesses concurred that the subject lands are well served by transit (existing and future LRT proposed) and access to active transportation in the area. Issue 5, asks if the subject development benefits from the transit area parking rate reduction for the designated transit area? This was reviewed thoroughly with the testimony of the planning witnesses and their explanation of the subject lands falling within the ‘Gault City Centre’ and adjacent to the ‘Urban Growth Centre’. The Urban Growth Centre was discussed, and is synonymous with the designated transit area, that has considerations for increased density and heights, but of greater relevance to this issue, has a zero-parking requirement.

91Mr. McGill opined that the subject lands are not within the delineated and designated transit area, thus, no benefits are felt from the transit area. Instead, he believed it was quite clear that subject lands are confined to the requirements of the in force ZBL. Mr. McGill highlighted the subject lands already have been provided reduced parking requirements with the minor variances acquired over the years.

92Mr. Pernicky concurred that the subject lands are not within the designated transit area, thus requiring the ZBLA. However, he felt it was very important to consider the proximity of the subject lands to the zero-parking requirement across the street. A holistic approach should recognize that the area across the street is very similar (in terms of services, and access to transit etc.) as the subject lands. Mr. Pernicky opined the justification and rationale to why the adjacent lands have a zero-parking requirement spills over to the subject lands (for the reasons noted above). While acknowledging the lands are somewhat different and not the same, Mr. Pernicky highlighted that is why a zero-parking rate is not being sought, but only the justified reduction, which is supported by the same justification and rationale as the designated transit area but further augmented with the empirical data and studies provided for the subject lands.

93Pertaining to Issues 6 and 7, and the TDM measures proposed by City Staff, both Mr. Pernicky and Mr. McGill were in agreement that cash-in-lieu does not constitute a TDM measure and should not be included as a means to justify a parking reduction. Mr. McGill saw the remaining TDM measures as appropriate and should be implemented with any parking reduction considered.

94Mr. Pernicky opined that the best and most appropriate TDM measure is the true on-site parking management of the owner or management company for any landowner operating and managing a parking facility. Further, he opined if there is less parking, or parking is more expensive, residents will make a positive choice that will make a difference in living costs. Building management has the ability to make it clear to potential tenants that parking will be limited, and residents will have to choose a more sustainable mode of travel or pay for the option of parking. Mr. Pernicky concluded that with all the evidence provided and with the subject lands located only a two (2)-minute walk from the Ainslie Transit Terminal and a few minutes to other amenities in the area, in his opinion the additional TDM measures provided by City Staff are not required for the approval of the OPA and ZBLA. City Staff may more appropriately implement relevant TDM measures (examples being Bicycle parking, unbundled ownership of residential unit versus parking spot etc.) at the Site Plan Approval stage.

95Mr. Pernicky in speaking to Issue 8 opined there will be little or no impact from this development on neighbouring properties, such as 8 Harris Street, because based on the parking utilization survey conducted, the results show that the parking rate is only around 0.58 spaces/unit. He gave evidence that the below grade parking between buildings is already separated and based on the actual needs for the subject lands, combined with appropriate on-site management and signage he is of the opinion that ‘spill-over parking’ is not a concern for the proposed development.

96Mr. McGill in contrast did express some concerns with ‘spill over parking’, citing the issue was raised by the Participants, and noting from his on-site inspection, demand for visitor parking at 151 Main Steet may be relevant based on By-law signage that currently exists, restricting visitors from parking on-site on the subject lands, however, with no direction or indication to visitors where they should go to park.

97Concluding with Issue 9, both Mr. Pernicky and Mr. McGill opined that parking reductions on the subject lands are justified beyond the 0.86 parking spaces/unit currently provided via minor variance approvals. The witnesses, however, were not in agreement as to the extent of the reduction. Mr. Pernicky was supportive of the 0.57 rate proposed and Mr. McGill was only able to support a rate of 0.73 with TDM measures.

DISPOSITION and Findings

98The Tribunal heard evidence from three qualified land use planners and two qualified parking and transportation experts, as well as having had the benefit to review numerous Exhibits and two participant statements.

99As is often the case, the Tribunal was tasked to adjudicate between what is the right balance between the objectives of intensification and transit-oriented development relative to the provisions of other services that are important to a safe and healthy community? The core issues of this Hearing became apparent and the provisions of providing more housing were balanced with important residential facilities such as amenity space and parking?

100Intensification and change in existing neighbourhoods are an ongoing challenge but such evolution is a provincial direction with the City also having identified the subject lands as being where such growth shall occur. With this reality in mind, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of both Mr. McGuffin and Ms. Friess, which was augmented with the technical support of the Parking Utilization Study and Addendum of Mr. Pernicky, as well as positive City Staff Recommendations on the matter.

101The provincial interests of the Act are broad, higher-level interests that the Tribunal finds have been met and that the proposal has had regard to the provisions of the Act and relevant subsections from the criteria of s. 2(a-s).

102The Tribunal made note that it was uncontested by the Parties that the proposal is in an area that is well served by transit and active transportation options. The Tribunal with the evidence provided is satisfied that the proposal is an appropriate orderly development that is compatible and harmoniously fits into the area, while contributing to a full range of housing in the area.

103Mr. McGuffin stated numerous times that it is relevant and important to consider that the province and particularly urban areas are experiencing an extreme housing supply shortage, which he further referred to as a “housing crisis”. Mr. Ramsay dismissed this factor from his analysis and focused on the planning policies and instruments for the matter at hand. The Tribunal in its adjudicative process does indeed put weight and consideration on Mr. McGuffin’s opinion on this matter. Although, by no means determinative, the market conditions do have impacts on provincial interest, which then distill to municipal matters that deserve consideration from this Tribunal.

104The evidence provided to the Tribunal pertaining to the PPS, has persuaded the Tribunal to accept and prefer the opinions of Mr. McGuffin and Ms. Friess. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied the proposal being in a Built-Up Area, Regeneration Area and MTSA in the Galt City Centre (City Downtown) is consistent with all relevant PPS policies.

105The public health and/or safety concerns raised by Mr. Ramsay were not supported with any evidence that would suggest that they are legitimate concerns. The fact that passive amenity space may be near the property line on the subject lands, does not differ in this Tribunal’s view from a public bench allowing someone the ability to sit and read near the road or an adjacent municipal sidewalk. Further, citing concerns with individuals crossing the road at a signalized intersection again does not satisfy this Tribunal that safety issues exist or may exist.

106The transit supportive nature of the lands with proximity to near by amenities became a theme that was very apparent to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence demonstrated the compact built form proposed utilizes both infrastructure and public facilities in an area identified to intensify.

107Lastly, pertaining to the OP, the Tribunal is persuaded more so by the evidence of both Mr. McGuffin and Ms. Friess than that of Mr. Ramsay. The Tribunal is satisfied that the subject lands are situated within an identified intensification area and the proposal is an appropriate form of infill development moderately intensifying an existing building. The Tribunal is satisfied that the scale, density, massing of the proposal conforms with the provisions of s. 2.6.1.6 and s. 2.8 and the proposal is compatible and conforms with other relevant criteria of these policies and the OP as a whole and does not represent an overdevelopment of the lands but instead a greater efficiency of the existing lands.

108The Tribunal considered the Participant statements provided and is satisfied the concerns raised relevant to land-use planning and parking matters were addressed through the course of the Hearing. Other matters beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or legalities pertaining to rights and in place obligations remain between the respected Parties and are not subject to adjudication by this Tribunal. As such the Tribunal finds the appeals are not premature and the evidence supports the increased density and reduced parking rate sought by the appeals.

The Amenity Space Issue

109Various opinions pertaining to what constitutes sufficient and functional amenity space were heard at this Hearing. Having heard Counsel’s argument, and Mr. Ramsay’s opinion that a 50% increase in units, without any change in amenity space will result in a living experience that will be insular and void of any functionality. The Tribunal is not satisfied, nor persuaded to accept this argument and opinion.

110The Tribunal has been satisfied by the evidence that the subject lands with the increased density will continue to provide the opportunity for residents to experience both passive and active recreation. The Tribunal did give additional weight to the fact the subject lands have both passive and active amenity, as well as social amenity opportunities, mere metres away from its doorstep and its locational advantage to other similar buildings outside of the City’s downtown area.

111Lastly, and expanding on the previous paragraph, the location of the subject lands being in the ‘Gault City Centre’ also weighed into the Tribunal’s decision. The urban nature of the building must be considered with the ability of the resident to choose if the urban lifestyle ‘works for them’. This does not mean that amenity space should not be provided, however, the expectation of limited onsite amenity space is a logical deduction, when further facilitated with numerous options within walking distance.

112The Tribunal has considered the calculation method proposed by Mr. Ramsay claiming that the City has overestimated the amenity space with unwarranted inclusions in its calculation. It finds that Ms. Friess and City planning staff are the experts pertaining to this calculation. The subjectivity of what should or should not be included can be debated at length, however, the calculation method in this proposal has been provided to all City applications past, present and likely future, and has been provided in this case in public notice. Therefore, it is accepted as the calculation this Tribunal deems as accurate and appropriate.

The Parking Issue

113There was a consensus of the experts heard at this Hearing, and further City Staff in its recommendations to Council concurred, that a parking reduction on the subject lands was supportable. Mr. Pernicky and Mr. McGill varied however, in their opinions, to the extent of those reductions. Mr. Pernicky conducted a parking utilization study and provided an update Addendum for the subject lands and concluded 0.57 spaces/unit was supportable for the proposed development. The City and Mr. McGill accepted Mr. Pernicky’s methodology and data in the Addendum. Mr. McGill did not conduct any studies and instead relied on City vehicular ownership data (which he acknowledged under cross examination was somewhat out of date) and surrounding parking ratios from neighbouring municipalities to formulate his opinion, that a 0.73 spaces/unit ratio was supportable on the subject lands.

114The Tribunal prefers the opinion of Mr. Pernicky, that 0.57 spaces/unit is supportable for the proposal, which was put forward with the support from onsite surveys that served to substantiate his opinion.

115Both Mr. Pernicky and Mr. McGill agreed that there has been a significant push for transit-oriented development by all levels of government. The Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. Pernicky that ‘induced demand’ and providing unneeded parking is counterintuitive to reduce vehicular dependency.

116The Tribunal further accepts the opinion of Mr. Pernicky that the market should dictate, in urban downtown settings, if parking is desired. Meaning, that parking (at a reduced rate) should be provided but paid for by the resident. The resident then makes the determination on how important parking is to them, particularly in an area where alternative transportation options exist. Mr. Pernicky’s opined this will likely generate the sought-after outcome of reduced vehicular usage and dependency. Mr. McGill agreed under cross examination that if parking is not available, people are more likely to use other modes of transportation. Both parking experts agreed that this is a highly transit supportive site and that other modes of transportation are available to these residents.

117The concerns raised by Mr. McGill regarding potential impacts on 8 Harris Street and the use of this neighbouring property by visitors to the subject lands (also shared by the Participants) has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Firstly, no visitor parking requirement exists on the subject lands or on the neighbouring property. The residents of both 8 Harris Street and 151 Main Street have onsite parking predominantly underground and in separate parking garages. The potential visitor parking issue may arise; however, the Tribunal is satisfied with the opinion of Mr. Pernicky that this is a building management issue. Mr. McGill agreed on cross examination that there is plenty of offsite parking available for visitors. He also agreed that the owners of 151 Main Street and the owners of 8 Harris Street can use signage and towing to enforce against illegal parking by visitors.

The Holding Provision to Secure Transportation Demand Management Measures

118City staff was recommending that a holding provision be included in the ZBLA to secure an agreement for TDM and cash-in-lieu.

119No additional evidence was provided by the City or its transportation department at this Hearing. Both Mr. McGill and Mr. Pernicky agreed that the purpose of TDM measures are to reduce vehicular dependency and that cash-in-lieu is therefore not considered a TDM measure, nor should it be included as a condition if the Tribunal is inclined to approve the appeals before it. Mr. Pernicky explained that the purpose of cash-in-lieu is to construct parking facilities off site, which works against the objectives of TDM, and Mr. McGill expanded that even if that was a consideration, the amount proposed by City staff was far lesser than would be required to construct parking facilities.

120Mr. McGill and Mr. Pernicky did agree on two of the TDM measures that were recommended by City staff, one, being the provision of 36 secure bicycle parking spaces and two, requiring that parking must be rented and “unbundled” from the dwelling units.

121It was Mr. Pernicky’s opinion that the third transportation demand measure of providing a display board showing departure times of transit in the lobby is outdated and unnecessary given the development of phone apps that can more easily and conveniently provide this information. Mr. McGill offered little by way of support or against this TDM method.

122Having considered the evidence before it, the Tribunal concurs that cash-in-lieu serves no net benefit to the issue of parking on the subject lands and is not a TDM measure, nor an appropriate condition of approval for this proposal. The remaining TDM measures are deemed appropriate, however, the Tribunal prefers the methodology proposed by Mr. Pernicky, that these and perhaps other items may be more appropriately dealt with at the Site Plan Approval stage. Site Plan consideration is not before this Tribunal, thus, no TDM measures will be imposed on the proposal by this Tribunal, thus no holding provision is deemed necessary.

Decision

123The Tribunal has considered all the information that the Parties have provided and is satisfied that the scale and built form proposed by the Appellant on the subject lands are appropriate for the area and compatible with the existing and evolving context of the area.

124The Tribunal is satisfied that all Issues provided in the PO and Amended Issues List for this Hearing have been addressed and the evidence provided supports the approval of the proposal.

125The Tribunal having heard the testimony of the witnesses and having been provided submissions by Counsel and reviewing the evidence provided in its totality finds that the Appellant’s proposal and both the OPA and ZBLA sought, have regard to s. 2 of the Act as required. The Proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan and both the Regional and the City OP and represents good land-use planning in the public interest.

126The Tribunal has had regard to s. 2.1 (a) of the Act and to Council’s decision that did not approve the OPA or ZBLA before it. However, the Tribunal was provided little or no rationale to why that decision was reached. Conversely, the Tribunal was provided City Staff recommendations to approve the proposal, and as also required has had regard to s. 2.1 (b) all the materials provided to City Council in consideration of this matter.

ORDER

127THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Official Plan Amendment appeal is allowed, and the Official Plan for the City of Cambridge is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

128THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal is allowed, and the City of Cambridge is directed to amend By-law No. C1RM1 4.1.178 as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

“M. Russo”

M. russo

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 1

Draft Official Plan Amendment

Purpose and Effect of Official Plan Amendment No. 45 151 Main Street

The Purpose of the proposed official plan amendment is to increase the maximum floor space index (FSI) and height on the lands designated Galt City Centre from 2.0 FSI to 2.06 and from five to six storeys.

The Effect of the amendment is to permit an increase in FSI and height of an existing four storey 78-unit apartment building, to a six storey 118-unit apartment building.

By-law No. XX-XX

of the City of Cambridge

Being a By-law of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge to adopt Amendment No. 45, to the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) as amended for lands known municipally as 151 Main Street

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporation of the City of Cambridge enacts as follows:

1. THAT Amendment No. 45 to the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) applies to lands legally described as Part of Lots 52 and 57, Plan D-7, Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-184, Parts 1 and 5, Parts 2 to 4, 58R-14924, in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo;

2. THAT Amendment No. 45 to the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) as amended, consisting of the text and attached map, is hereby adopted;

3. THAT this By-law shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing thereof.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, ENACTED AND PASSED this

day of , A.D. 2022.

Mayor

Clerk

Amendment No. 45 to the City of Cambridge Official Plan BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT

The official plan amendment is to increase the permitted maximum residential density and structure height on the lands designated Galt City Centre from 2.0 FSI to 2.06 and from five to six storeys to allow the development of a six storey 118-unit residential apartment building.

The multi-unit residential intensification of the subject lands is proposed within the Urban Area Boundary and Built-Up Area of the City of Cambridge, immediately adjacent to the Urban Growth Centre which is where residential intensification is encouraged, and redevelopment is anticipated. The redevelopment is supported by available infrastructure including municipal roads, water, sanitary sewer and stormwater services. The pattern of development fits within the existing residential use fabric in the surrounding neighbourhood, is within close proximity of commercial and service commercial uses, future ION stations and complies with the intent of the City of Cambridge Official Plan.

THE AMENDMENT

1. Chapter 16, Figures of the City of Cambridge Official Plan is hereby amended by inserting Figure XX attached hereto;

2. Map 2A of the City of Cambridge Official Plan is hereby amended by inserting reference to Figure XX; and,

3. Section 8.10.XX of the City of Cambridge Official Plan is hereby included by adding the following text thereto:

8.10.XX Notwithstanding the maximum permitted net density in this Plan in Policy

2.8.3.3 – Table 3, the lands on the south side of Main Street, west of Harris Street, east of Wellington South and north of Commonwealth Lane, and designated on Map 2 as Galt City Centre and more particularly shown as the subject lands on Figure 45 will be permitted to develop at a maximum density of

2.06 FSI and building height of six storeys for a total of 118-dwelling units.

Figure XX

Subject Lands

ATTACHMENT 2

Draft Zoning By-law Amendment

Purpose and Effect of By-law No. 20-XXX

151 Main Street

The Purpose of the proposed By-law is to amend the zoning for a part of the parcel of land legally described as Part of Lots 52 and 57, Plan D-7, Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-184, Parts 1 and 5, Parts 2 to 4, 58R-14924, in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo and is municipally known as 151 Main Street. The proposal is to allow the addition of two storeys onto an existing four storey residential apartment building, and allow relief to some of the site development specifications including:

• Permit an increase in density to 385 Units Per Hectare

• Permit a maximum height of 22.5m (73.82 feet)

• A reduction in the minimum amenity area per one and two bedroom dwelling unit to 10m2 (107.6ft2)

• a limit of six storeys in height

• a reduction in parking requirement to permit 0.57 parking spaces/dwelling unit

• That By-law 164-00 is repealed as it relates to 151 Main St, and regulations carried forward to recognize the existing structure

o Maximum lot coverage 60% of the lot area

o Minimum landscaped open space 25% of the lot area

o An access driveway may be provided on adjacent parcels of land

o No access driveway shall be located within 4m of a window of a habitable room of a dwelling unit as measured perpendicular to the wall containing such window

Purpose and Effect of By-law No. 20-XXX

151 Main Street

The Purpose of the proposed By-law is to amend the zoning for a part of the parcel of land legally described as Part of Lots 52 and 57, Plan D-7, Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-184, Parts 1 and 5, Parts 2 to 4, 58R-14924, in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo and is municipally known as 151 Main Street. The proposal is to allow the addition of two storeys onto an existing four storey residential apartment building, and allow relief to some of the site development specifications including:

• Permit an increase in density to 385 Units Per Hectare

• Permit a maximum height of 22.5m (73.82 feet)

• A reduction in the minimum amenity area per one and two bedroom dwelling unit to 10m2 (107.6ft2)

• a limit of six storeys in height

• a reduction in parking requirement to permit 0.57 parking spaces/dwelling unit

• That By-law 164-00 is repealed as it relates to 151 Main St, and regulations carried forward to recognize the existing structure

• Maximum lot coverage 60% of the lot area

• Minimum landscaped open space 25% of the lot area

• An access driveway may be provided on adjacent parcels of land

• No access driveway shall be located within 4m of a window of a habitable room of a dwelling unit as measured perpendicular to the wall containing such window

BY-LAW. 20-XXX OF THE

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Being a By-law of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge to amend Zoning By-law No. 150-85, as Amended with respect to land municipally known as 151 MAIN STREET

WHEREAS Council of the City of Cambridge has the authority pursuant to Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended to pass this By-law;

AND WHEREAS this By-law conforms to the City of Cambridge Official Plan, as amended;

AND WHEREAS Council deems that adequate public notice of the public meeting was provided and adequate information regarding the Amendment was presented at the public meeting held November 12th, 2019, and that multiple additional Citizen’s Liaison Committee and Neighbourhood meetings were held and further meetings are not considered necessary in order to proceed with this Amendment;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporation of the City of Cambridge enacts as follows:

1. THAT this by-law shall apply to a portion of the lands described as Part of Lots 52 and 57, Plan D-7, Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-184, Parts 1 and 5, Parts 2 to 4, 58R-14924, City of Cambridge, Region of Waterloo and is shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this by-law;

2. THAT Schedule ‘A’ to By-law No. 150-85, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning classification of the lands shown outlined in heavy black in the attached Schedule ‘A’ to this By-law from C1RM1 s.4.1.178 to C1RM1 s.4.1.395 in accordance with the attached Schedule ‘A’ to this By-law

3. THAT by-law 164-00 is repealed for the portion of the lands described as Part of Lots 52 and 57, Plan D-7, Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-184, Parts 1 and 5, Parts 2 to 4, 58R-14924.

4. THAT the aforesaid City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 150-85, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection to 4.1 thereof:

“4.1.395 – 151 Main Street, legally described as Plan 58M184 Pt Blk 1, Plan D-7 Part of Lots 52 and 57, RP 58R14924, Parts 1 and 5

Notwithstanding 2.2.1.1(d) 2.2.2.3(a) and (f) , 3.1.2.4(b)(d) (e) (h) (i) and (j) and in addition to the regulations prescribed in Section 3.1.2.4 of the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 150-85, the following regulations shall apply to the property in the C1RM1 zone to which reference “s.4.1.395” is made on Schedule A:

a. Minimum amenity area per dwelling unit of 10m2 for a one bedroom unit

b. Minimum amenity area per dwelling unit of 10m2 for a two bedroom unit

c. Maximum permitted building height of 22.5m

d. Maximum permitted building height of six storeys

e. Maximum permitted density of 385 units per hectare

f. A minimum parking requirement of 0.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit

g. Maximum lot coverage 60% of the lot area

h. Minimum landscaped open space 25% of the lot area

i. An access driveway may be provided on adjacent parcels of land

j. No access driveway shall be located within 4m of a window of a habitable room of a dwelling unit as measured perpendicular to the wall containing such window

4. THAT reference to “s.4.1.395” is made on Zoning Map K10 of by-law 150-85.

5. THAT this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date it is enacted and passed by Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge, subject to notice hereof being circulated in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 545/06

Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed this _ day of

2022. PASSED AND ENACTED this day of 2022

Mayor

Clerk

Schedule A