Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 25, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001506 OLT-21-001515 OLT-21-001516
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Maurice Desrochers Subject: Minor Variance Property Address/Description: 548 Burlington Avenue Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law No. 2020 Municipality: City of Burlington Municipal File No.: 540-02-A-033/2020 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001506 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001506 OLT Case Name: Desrochers v. Burlington (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Maurice Desrochers Subject: Minor Variance Property Address/Description: 1385 Caroline Street Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law No. 2020 Municipality: City of Burlington Municipal File No.: 540-02-A-033/2020 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001515 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001515 OLT Case Name: Desrochers v. Burlington (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Maurice Desrochers Subject: Minor Variance Property Address/Description: 550 Burlington Avenue Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law No. 2020 Municipality: City of Burlington Municipal File No.: 540-02-A-033/2020 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001516 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001516 OLT Case Name: Desrochers v. Burlington (City)
Heard: March 15, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Maurice Desrochers | Bruce Engell, Charles Lund |
| City of Burlington | Lauren Pinder |
DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG and eric s. crowe and order of the tribunal
1Maurice Desrochers (the “Applicant”), intends to develop three properties municipally known as 548 and 550 Burlington Avenue and 1385 Caroline Street (“subject properties”/“subject lands”), in the City of Burlington (“City”). He applied for relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2020 as amended (the “ZBL”), so as to permit construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling with attached garage and front covered porch on each lot of the subject properties.
2In order to facilitate the proposed development, the following variances were required:
548 Burlington Avenue:
To permit a front yard setback abutting Burlington Avenue of 5.4 m instead of the minimum required 6.0 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage including bay windows.
To permit a front yard setback abutting Burlington Avenue of 4.5 m instead of the minimum required 5.35 m (6 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed roofed over porch including overhangs and stairs.
To permit a rear yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a north side yard setback of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a street side yard setback abutting Caroline Street of 2.8 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage including window wells.
To permit a street side yard setback abutting Caroline Street of 3.5 m instead of the minimum required 3.85 m (4.5 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed roofed over porch including roof overhang and stairs.
To permit a street side yard setback abutting Caroline Street of 3.9 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed second storey balcony/terrace.
To permit lot coverage of 39.2% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit floor area ratio of 0.67:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
550 Burlington Avenue:
To permit lot coverage of 32.2% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit floor area ratio of 0.64:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a front yard setback of 3.9 m instead of the minimum required 5.35 m (6 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed roofed over porch including steps and overhang.
To permit a north side yard setback of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a south side yard setback of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage including proposed window wells.
To permit a dwelling depth of 20.9 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
1385 Caroline Street:
To permit lot coverage of 33.3% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit floor area ratio of 0.65:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a front yard setback abutting Caroline Street of 4.1 m instead of the minimum required 6.0 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a front yard setback abutting Caroline Street of 3.4 m instead of the minimum required 5.35 m (6.0 m - .65 m encroachment) for a proposed roofed over porch including steps and overhang.
To permit a rear yard setback of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage.
To permit a 3.8 m street side yard setback abutting a public laneway instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling with attached garage including window wells.
To permit an east side yard setback of 1.1 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for a proposed roofed over patio.
3The City Planning Staff’s report dated February 17, 2021, recommended the application be refused. The Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on April 28, 2021, approved all variances applied for except with respect to the floor area ratio (“FAR”) variances for the said properties, which were rejected (“Approval with rejection”).
4The Applicant appealed the COA’s rejection of the variances for FAR.
Brief Chronology of the Applications
5The Applicant had previously obtained approvals for the minor variances for the subject properties before the ZBL was updated to the current one. However, those minor variances lapsed due to conditions not being fulfilled within two years. The present applications were thus necessitated as the updated ZBL has new requirements in respect of Building Depth and FAR, which were not standards in the previous version of the By-law.
SITE CONTEXT
6The subject lands are municipally known as 550 Burlington Avenue, 548 Burlington Avenue and 1385 Caroline Street, and are currently all vacant lots. The subject lands are all designated ‘Mixed Use Centre – St. Luke’s Precinct’, within the City’s Official Plan 1997 (“1997 OP”) and are located within the Downtown Mixed-Use Centre. The subject lands are zoned ‘Downtown Residential Low-Density’ (“DRL”), under the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 2020, as amended. The subject lands are also located within a designated area with restrictive regulations for lot coverage and FAR, within the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 2020, as amended.
7550 Burlington Avenue supports a total lot area of 373 square metres (“m2”) and a lot width of 12.1 metres (“m”); 548 Burlington Avenue supports a total lot area of 379 m2 and a lot width of 17.1 m; and 1385 Caroline Street supports a total lot area of 343 m2 and a lot width of 15.2 m.
8The subject lands are located in the downtown area of the City; west of Brant Street; north of Lake Ontario; and east of the Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”).
9The subject properties are located within the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct, which is bounded by Baldwin Street to the north; Locust Street to the east; Lakeshore Road to the south; and Nelson Avenue and Clarke Avenue to the west.
10548 Burlington Avenue is located on the northwest corner of Burlington Avenue and Caroline Street intersection; north of Ontario Street; east of Hager Avenue; and south of Birch Avenue. 550 Burlington Avenue is located directly north of 548 Burlington Avenue with frontage along Burlington Avenue and rear laneway access north of Caroline Street. 1385 Caroline Street is located north of Caroline Street and flanks the laneway north of Caroline Street.
11The surrounding area is characterized primarily by mature one and two-storey dwellings and some re-developed two-storey dwellings with similar physical characteristics such as subordinate second floor areas, significant wall and roof articulation on the second floor, and large rear yard setbacks (ranging approximately from 23 m to 11 m).
12Lots in the surrounding area are predominately long and narrow, with some larger corner lots (e.g., 534 Burlington Avenue; 564 Burlington Avenue; 567 Burlington Avenue; and 539 Hager Avenue). Lot areas predominately range from 390 m2 to 422 m2 , with some slightly larger lots ranging from 450 m2 to 630 m2, and some significantly larger lots ranging from 780 m2 to 1,400 m2 .
13Corner lots (whether large or smaller lot areas) in the surrounding area tend to have increased spatial separations, particularly towards the street, compared to the interior and more narrow lots.
14Adjacent and surrounding land uses include DRL immediately to all directions, with the Hydro Corridor further west, Downtown Centre uses further east, and some Downtown Residential Medium and High-Density uses to the southwest.
15There are some residential properties in the vicinity with heritage interest, including 534 and 526 Burlington Avenue, which are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) and directly south of the subject lands; and properties further south along Hager Avenue and Ontario Street, which are listed on the City’s Heritage Register.
HEARING
16The Joint Document Book was marked as Exhibit 1; Annotated Sketch Plans was marked as Exhibit 2; and Staff Report 550 Burlington Avenue was marked as Exhibit 3.
17The Applicant’s Counsel, Bruce Engell, called Michael Barton, a very qualified and experienced registered land use planner as witness and he was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on land use planning. Counsel for the City, Lauren Pinder, called the city planner, Taylor MacDonald-Plummer, who has a masters degree (School of urban and regional planning) and has been a planner with the City since 2019. She was similarly qualified to give expert opinion on land use planning.
18Both experts agreed that the applications generally are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conforms to the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”) and maintains the intent of the Region of Halton Official Plan (“ROP”). Where they disagree is with regards to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”), the Zoning By-law, the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and the satisfaction of the tests.
19Mr. Barton opined that all tests were met while Ms. MacDonald-Plummer opined that they were not.
20At this juncture, the Tribunal will add that Mr. Barton is a registered planner with years of experience. Ms. MacDonald-Plummer, who is in the process of being registered is nevertheless a planner employed by the City who is experienced and engaged in land use planning matters, and her expert opinion on this matter is accepted and given weight by this Tribunal despite the Applicant’s allusion to her junior status. (see 1796447 Ontario Ltd., Re, (2011) CarswellOnt 12567).
THE APPLICANT’S POSITION
21Mr. Barton, Planner for the Applicant, provided an overview of the applications and the carriage he had of these applications since 2014.
22Originally, he was retained for the consent severance application, which was granted. On the subject of minor variances, those were approved but as the building permits were not obtained in time, they lapsed. As such, the applications were resubmitted with no changes to the design.
23Although there was an updated ZBL, Mr. Barton considered the changes were not material as they related only to building depth and the FAR. He was of the view that that did not trigger new variances in the applications.
24Previous City Planning staff had recommended approval of the original applications based on the previous version of the ZBL. However, when the resubmissions were made, the present planning staff report recommended refusal of all variances applied for in the three applications. Mr. Barton stated however, that the COA approved the variances but for the FAR variances in those applications.
25He went through aerial photo visuals on the variety in lot configurations that he contends is the neighbourhood character of this area. There is a variability in lot dimensions and configurations, he said. The St. Luke’s Precinct area is a diversity of built form and lot sizes, he added.
26He opined that the current 1997 OP’s and the updated City’s 2020 Official Plan’s (“2020 OP”) general intent is to ensure the character of the neighbourhood is maintained, that there is compatibility without adverse impact. He stated that the difference between the two plans is not material (the 2020 OP is not in effect with respect to the applications and is being appealed).
27He took the Tribunal through the various properties’ photographs in the area, to show the general low rise one to two storey buildings’ built form. Special mention was made that the same Architect who designed the 551 Hager house, also designed the Applicant’s 554 Burlington Ave. house. The Applicant is said to have ensured that the design of the dwellings for the proposed development will be able to integrate in to this area of the neighbourhood.
28Mr. Barton went into details of the variances: of the various yard setbacks of the Proposal and stated that these were essentially similar and previously already approved together with the lot coverage variances.
29He highlighted the earlier 554 Burlington Avenue house’s approval (except for lot coverage) of the Applicant’s that was given and in which the dwelling was built adjacent to the proposed dwellings.
30Further, he explained that the 551 Hager house that was built before the ZBL update, with detached garage, would now have a FAR of 0.7:1 (if the garage is attached). He stated that a detached garage is not included in the FAR, so the dwelling alone is already with FAR of 0.5:1.
31Mr. Barton stressed that the proposed three lots are designed to work together, where the front of the dwellings relate to the porch of the other building, and how the setbacks relate to drainage and work together in relation to the broader neighbourhood. He went on to explain the height, setbacks, design and elements of the subject properties, bump outs, house areas of 2,400 square feet (“sq ft”) to 2,700 sq ft. The dwellings, he said, are designed to balance and fit in with the character of the neighbourhood.
32He then went on to deal with the previous planning staff reports on each of the respective properties, in turn: 548 Burlington Avenue, 1385 Caroline Street and 550 Burlington Avenue (for the variances approvals obtained prior to the resubmission). He went through these staff reports at length and read portions of the reports and expressed his agreement to the recommended approvals for those previous reports.
33Mr. Barton, placed emphasis on the staff report in relation to 550 Burlington Avenue that staff recommended variances approval. The previous report recommended approval of the lot coverages, and yard setbacks proposed. 550 Burlington Avenue received approval on February, 2016, for various minor variances. 548 Burlington Avenue received approval on September 25, 2017, for various minor variances. 1385 Caroline Street also received approval on September 25, 2017, for minor variances.
34The resubmissions with the unchanged design and the similar setbacks and lot coverages requesting the similar required reliefs, were resubmitted with the additions of the FAR new requirement and the Building depth requirement.
35Mr. Barton stated that the new planning staff report, now recommended refusal of all variances. Mr. Barton was generally of the opinion that the variances should similarly be approved and the new planning staff should have recommended approval.
36As it turned out, for the resubmission, the COA approved all other variances but did not approve the FAR variances, which resulted in these appeals before the Tribunal.
37Mr. Barton’s view is that the new regulations on maximum depth 18 m and the FAR 0.45:1 are just “numbers” concerns as to why a dwelling does not fit on a lot. To him, it should be an analysis of the character of the neighbourhood and the compatibility of the proposed development. One should ask whether the FAR changes impact relative to the proposed development. His view is that the FAR does not automatically change this neighbourhood.
38The City and the Applicant have the same opinion that the proposal is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and maintains the intent of the ROP. However, Mr. Barton confirmed that they differ in issues of the proposal being compliant with the intent of the City’s OP, the intent of the ZBL and the statutory tests. Mr. Barton took the Tribunal through the Municipal policies, the OP, ZBL and the requirements of s. 45(1) statutory tests.
39In Mr. Barton’s opinion the proposed three applications for the minor variances meet the four tests, represent good planning and should be approved.
The City’s Position
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (“PPS”) AND GROWTH PLAN
40Ms. MacDonald-Plummer reviewed the policies of the PPS and Growth Plan and opined that the proposed development and requested variances are consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan.
REGION OF HALTON’S OFFICIAL PLAN (“ROP”)
41The subject lands are located within the Region’s Urban Area (Map 1 – Regional Structure), and accordingly, are subject to the Urban Area policies.
42She reviewed the Regional Official Plan, and opined that the proposed development and requested variances are in conformity with and does not conflict with the Regional Official Plan Urban Area policies.
BURLINGTON CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN 1997 (“1997 OP”)
43Ms. MacDonald-Plummer stated that the subject lands are designated ‘Mixed Use Centre – St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct’ within the 1997 OP and are located within the Downtown Mixed-Use Centre.
44Part II, Section 6 of the 1997 OP outlines design policies for development throughout the City. The objectives of these design policies are to ensure the design of the built environment preserves, enhances and connects natural features and landscapes; to ensure that the design of the built environment strengthens and enhances the character of existing distinctive locations and neighbourhoods; proposals for infill are designed to be compatible and sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character; and to ensure consistency, compatibility and quality in the built environment while allowing for a diverse design expression.
Infill Development is defined as development or re-development within an existing developed area which is proposed to be undertaken in conformity with the existing zoning, and which may include development on vacant lands, the addition of dwelling units, or the creation of new lots (Part VIII, Definitions).(Page 450 - Exhibit 1).
45Subsection 6.5, the Design Guideline Policies of the City’s 1997 OP direct that the density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of development are to be compatible with its surrounding area.
Compatibility is defined as Development or re-development that is capable of co-existing in harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical (including form) or functional adverse impact on existing or proposed development in the area or pose an unacceptable risk to environmental and/or human health. Compatibility should be evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards where they exist, based on criteria such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-shadowing, and the potential for serious adverse health impacts on humans or animals (Part VIII, Definitions).(Page 442 - Exhibit 1).
46Subsection 5.5.1 b), of the Downtown Mixed-Use Centre policies directs that the Downtown shall take advantage of the unique qualities that set it apart from all other areas of the City and contribute to a distinct identity; establish planning precincts within the Downtown, each with their own distinct character and specific planning policies; ensure that the density, form, bulk, height and spacing of development is compatible with the surrounding area.
47Subsection 5.5.4 a) identifies the objective of the St. Luke’s and Emerald Neighbourhood Precincts are to preserve stable residential and heritage character of these neighbourhoods and to ensure that any re-development is compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhoods.
48Subsection 5.5.4 b) further identifies these areas permit existing uses; detached dwellings to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare and a maximum building height of two-and-half storeys; accessory dwelling units subject to Part III, Subsection 2.5.3; group homes, home occupations and cottage industries; neighbourhood parks; and offices in existing buildings.
49Ms. MacDonald-Plummer stated that in all three of the subject applications, the proposed development with respect to use (single detached dwellings) is permitted.
50To help preserve these areas, Subsection 5.5.4 c) of the 1997 OP states that all development and re-development shall be compatible with the existing character of these neighbourhoods with respect to heights, setbacks, massing, design and community features.
Massing is defined as the overall bulk, size, physical volume, or magnitude of a structure or project (Part VIII, Definitions). (Page 451 - Exhibit 1).
51Her opinion is that the proposed development and requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s 1997 OP.
BURLINGTON NEW OFFICIAL PLAN 2020 (“2020 OP”)
52On November 30, 2020, the Region of Halton issued a Notice of Decision approving the new City of Burlington’s 2020 OP. Much of the 2020 OP is currently under appeal and the subject applications were submitted prior to the Region’s Notice of Decision. Accordingly, the City’s 1997 OP is the determinative plan for these applications. Regardless, it is Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s opinion that the 2020 OP maintains the intent and purpose of the 1997 OP as it applies to these lands, and accordingly, her opinion does not change when considered against the policies of the 2020 OP.
53The subject lands are located within the ‘Downtown Urban Centre’ (Schedule B – Urban Structure) and an ‘Established Neighbourhood Area’ (Schedule B-1 – Growth Framework); and designated as ‘Low-Rise Neighbourhood Precinct’ within the ‘St. Luke’s and Emerald Neighbourhoods’ (Schedule D – Land Use Downtown Urban Centre), within the City’s New 2020 OP.
54The Low-Rise Neighbourhood Precincts designation, s. 8.1.1(3.13) aims to maintain the existing established residential and historic character of certain low-rise neighbourhoods in the Downtown Urban Centre. It also states that limited development opportunities within the precinct will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood area and fit into the existing physical character.
55In all three of the subject applications, the proposed development with respect to use (single detached dwellings) is permitted.
56She reiterated that as the subject Minor Variance Applications were received prior to the Region’s approval of the 2020 OP, the determinative OP is the City’s 1997 OP.
BURLINGTON ZONING BY-LAW (“ZBL”)
57The subject lands are zoned DRL, under the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 2020, as amended.
58The DRL zone permits a single detached dwelling subject to the Low Density -Residential (R3.2) regulations, as per Table 6.2.2, footnote c), under the ZBL (Part 6, Section 2, Table 6.2.2).
59The subject lands are located in an area designated with restrictive regulations for lot coverage and FAR. As per footnote b), these designated areas are shaded on ZONING MAPS in Part 15 of the ZBL (Part 2, Subsection 4.2, Table 2.4.3).
60ZBL 2020.374 amended regulations for Low-Density Residential zones and Neighbourhood Character Areas, introducing regulations for FAR and building depth, and expanding the areas subject to lot coverage regulations.
INTENT OF ZONING BY-LAW NO. 2020.374 (“ZBL 2020.374”)
61Ms. MacDonald-Plummer stated that ZBL 2020.374 and restrictive FAR and dwelling depth allowances was in response to new and re-development patterns occurring throughout the City. The intent of these regulations is to prevent overdevelopment and inappropriate massing in existing neighbourhoods. Under ZBL 2020.374, Low-Density Residential properties are permitted a maximum FAR of 0.45:1 and a maximum dwelling depth of 18 m (measured from the building wall closest to the front lot line to the building wall closest to the rear lot line).
62Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s opinion is that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s ZBL.
SECTION 45(1) Tests
63Ms. MacDonald-Plummer considered the requested minor variances for all three of the subject applications, individually and cumulatively. In her opinion, the proposed variances do not meet the required tests under s. 45(1) of the Act.
OFFICIAL PLAN 1997 (“1997 OP”)
64The general intent and purpose of the City’s OP is that new development is to be compatible with the surrounding area. More specifically, the objective of the St. Luke’s and Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct is to preserve the stable residential and heritage character of the neighbourhood, and to ensure any re-development is compatible with the existing character of these neighbourhoods.
65The subject lands are located in an area primarily characterized by mature one and two-storey dwellings, and some re-development two-storey dwellings. The existing character of the surrounding area is substantially either one-storey dwellings or two-storey dwellings with subordinate second floor areas compared to the first floor, articulated walls in the second-floor with varying depths and stepbacks, varying rooflines and appropriate setbacks.
66The surrounding area has substantially consistent setbacks to lot lines and the streetscape. Particularly, corner lots tend to have increased spatial separations and/or enhanced landscaping toward the street. Properties in the surrounding area tend to have significant rear yard setbacks that provide open, green space as amenity space for the subject residents.
67The proposed developments for each of the three subject applications exceed the maximum anticipated building envelope for the subject properties on the ground floor and second floor. Ms. MacDonald-Plummer opined that the reduced setbacks to all yards (except the rear yard for 550 Burlington Ave.) further exacerbates this situation of overbuilding by bringing the increased mass closer to the streetscape.
68This is a concern for the requested street side yard and front yard setbacks as reduced setbacks emphasize the massing to the street; and also, the interior side and rear yard setbacks as it negatively impacts the subject lands’ ability to provide separation between built forms and open green space throughout the property.
69She explained that although 550 Burlington Avenue does not request a variance for a reduced rear yard setback, it does include a variance for an increased dwelling depth. Furthermore, the rear yard is mostly occupied by a proposed driveway/hard surfaced area with very minimal open green space.
70Where there are larger dwellings in the surrounding area (e.g., 539 Hager Avenue and 534 Burlington Avenue), they are situated on larger lots that allow for the provision of appropriate open space, which mitigates the impact of massing. This is in contrast to the proposed development, which seek to build dwellings that are of a size that does not allow for the provisions of proportionate open space, which emphasizes the proposed massing.
71Open space on lots is a character of the existing surrounding neighbourhood, particularly in the rear yards, or in the front and sides if not in the rear. It is Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s opinion that each of the three subject applications facilitate developments that lack sufficient open space as it compares to the existing neighbourhood, aside from the increased massing.
72She acknowledges that the subject lands have smaller lot areas and irregular formations compared to the immediate surrounding area; however, new development should be tailored to the specific lot context to ensure appropriate setbacks and open space is provided and respectful of the existing surrounding neighbourhood. Instead of tailoring the proposed development to provide open space that is characteristic of the neighbourhood, the proposed developments reduced all of the required yards of 548 Burlington Avenue and 1385 Caroline Street, and most of 550 Burlington Avenue.
73The City’s OP’s definition of compatibility also includes ‘functional adverse impact on existing or proposed development in the area’.
74While some of the requested variances are not as significant when considered individually, Ms. MacDonald-Plummer is of the opinion that all of the requested variances for each of the three subject applications facilitate a development that is not compatible with the surrounding area; does not preserve the residential and heritage character of the existing St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct; and may generate functional adverse impacts regarding drainage to the surrounding area subject to the opinion of the Engineering Department.
75She opined that all of the requested variances for all three of the subject applications do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s OP.
ZONING BY-LAW (“ZBL”)
Setbacks, Lot Coverage and Dwelling Depth
76Ms. MacDonald-Plummer emphasized that the general intent and purpose of setback regulations is to promote compatibility by providing consistent and appropriate spatial separations between structures on adjacent lots and the streetscape. This assists with maintaining an orderly siting of buildings in a neighbourhood and mitigate massing to the surrounding streetscape and adjacent properties.
77The general intent and purpose of the rear yard setback regulation is for orderly siting of buildings and mitigate massing, as well as to ensure that structures do not encroach substantially into rear yards where that space is normally reserved as a spatial separation between dwellings and as an outdoor amenity area.
78The general intent and purpose of dwelling depth regulation is to improve overall compatibility between structures on adjacent lots. The regulation aims to prevent the presentation of overly long walls to adjacent developments. Increased house depths also impact the orderly siting of buildings on adjacent properties, so as to maintain a consistent placement of structures and open space in a neighbourhood.
79The additional street frontage of corner lots is taken into consideration by requiring an increased setback to street side lot lines compared to interior side lot lines. The intent of this regulation is to promote compatibility and recognize a street side yard should function differently than an interior side yard, given the nearby public realm.
80The general intent and purpose of the lot coverage regulation is to prevent overbuilding and provide an appropriate relationship between built form and open space. Properties located in designated areas, such as the subject lands, have restricted lot coverage allowances compared to other areas of the City. These more restrictive regulations better reflect Council’s expectations related to development and better define the policies contained within the 1997 OP, particularly regarding overall compatibility in existing neighbourhoods.
81The proposed development for 548 Burlington Avenue and 1385 Caroline Street requests variances to permit reduced setbacks to the front, rear, interior side and street side lot lines, and increased lot coverage; and 550 Burlington Avenue requests variances to permit reduced setbacks to the interior sides and front lot lines, and increased lot coverage.
82It is Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s opinion, that the requested variances for reduced setbacks to all yards (except the rear yard for 550 Burlington Avenue) in conjunction with increased lot coverages negatively impact the subject lands’ ability to provide appropriate spatial separations between structures on adjacent lots and the streetscape. The reduced amount of overall open space is of particular concern given the increased floor areas on both the ground and second floor.
83550 Burlington Avenue does not request a reduced rear yard setback; however, the rear yard is mostly occupied by a proposed driveway/hard surfaced area with very minimal open green space. Coupled with the reduced side and front yard setbacks and increased lot coverage, the proposed development results in minimal open green space and outdoor amenity area.
84The proposed development of 550 Burlington Avenue also includes an increased dwelling depth, which impacts the overall site’s orientation and ability to provide an appropriate amount of open space that is characteristic of the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct. A minor variance for an increased dwelling depth is only being requested for 550 Burlington Avenue.
85Ms. MacDonald-Plummer acknowledges that the proposed dwelling for 550 Burlington Avenue generally lines up with the immediate neighbouring property to the north (554 Burlington Avenue); however, she is of the opinion that the design, as it relates to volume and spatial separations, does not maintain the intent of preventing overly long dwelling walls. The increased dwelling depth is exacerbated by maximizing the ground-floor and second-floor areas; increased lot coverage; and a reduced north side yard setback, particularly to the neighbouring property to the north (554 Burlington Avenue).
86She opined that all three of the subject applications propose a development that utilizes an increased FAR and lot coverage. This increases the built form massing by maximizing the building envelope on both floors. The increased dwelling size is then brought closer to the street and adjacent properties due to the reduced setbacks.
87She added that it is important to note that lot coverage is a regulation that factors lot size into the permission to ensure the proposed massing of a development is proportionate with the lot size. This results in smaller lots anticipating smaller built forms.
88She notes that 548 Burlington Avenue’s requested variance for lot coverage (39.2%) exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage for properties outside of designated areas (35% for two-storey dwellings with attached garages), and the maximum permitted lot coverage for one-storey dwellings (with attached garages) within a designated area (35%).
89Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s opinion is that the proposed development, as it relates to lot coverage and setbacks, and in the dwelling depth for 550 Burlington Ave., is not compatible with the surrounding area and does not provide an appropriate relationship of built form and open space, which is the characteristic of the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct.
90She opines that all of the requested variances regarding lot coverage and setbacks for all three of the subject applications do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) and Lot Coverage
91Ms. MacDonald-Plummer reiterated that the general intent and purpose of the FAR regulation is to limit the overall size and volume of buildings in existing neighbourhoods. This regulation is a more recent zoning regulation approved by City Council in response to new and re-development occurring in existing neighbourhoods. Notwithstanding other performance standards, such as lot coverage, setbacks, and height, the restrictive FAR limits the overall size and volume of buildings in an effort to encourage development that is considerate of the surrounding area’s built form.
92The maximum FAR regulation of 0.45:1 for a two-storey dwelling is applied in conjunction with a maximum lot coverage of 25%, and accordingly, it is important to consider the relationship between the two regulations. She notes that the FAR of 0.45:1 is less than what would result by building a dwelling that maximizes the applicable lot coverage of 25% and doubles it on the second storey (which would result in a FAR of 0.50:1), which implies an intent for there to be a subordinate second storey when a dwelling is built to the maximum lot coverage on the first storey. It is possible for a proposed dwelling to avail itself of the maximum lot coverage and meet the FAR regulation by ensuring the second floor is subordinate to the first, thus minimizing the impact of upper level massing. For instance, as per the ZBL, the first floor could support a lot coverage of 25% and the second floor could support a floor area of 20% coverage, for a total FAR of 0.45:1.
93Ms. MacDonald-Plummer stated that it is also possible for a proposed dwelling to utilize a lot coverage less than the maximum permitted amount and therefore, have a comparable first and second-floor area, while still maintaining the maximum permitted floor area ratio of 0.45:1. For instance, as per the ZBL, the first floor could support a lot coverage of 20% and a second floor area of 20% coverage, for a total FAR of 0.40:1.
94Similar to lot coverage, floor area is a regulation that factors lot size into the permission to ensure the proposed development is proportionate with the lot size, particularly in regard to massing. The intent of using a ratio reliant on lot size is that smaller lots will have smaller built forms.
95She explained that the proposed development for 548 Burlington Avenue proposes a main floor area of 148.38m2 and a second-floor area of 103.846m2, which results in a lot coverage of 39.2% and a second-floor coverage of 27.4%.
96The proposed development for 550 Burlington Avenue seeks a first-floor area of 120.1m2 and a second-floor area of 116.5m2, which results in a lot coverage of 32.2% and a second-floor coverage of 31.23%.
97The proposed development for 1385 Caroline Street supports a first-floor area of 113.57m2 and a second-floor area of 109.04m2, which results in a lot coverage of 33.23% and a second-floor coverage of 31.79%.
98While Ms. MacDonald-Plummer recognizes that the proposed second-floor area is considerably subordinate to the first-floor area for 548 Burlington Avenue, and slightly subordinate for 550 Burlington Avenue and 1385 Caroline Street, the intent of the FAR regulation is not simply to have a subordinate second floor. It is intended to limit the overall volume. Where the lot coverage has been maxed out, the second floor should be subordinate. Where there is a comparable first and second-floor area, appropriate setbacks should be provided to be considerate of the increased building volume.
99She notes that all three of the subject applications facilitate a development that exceeds the maximum permitted 25% lot coverage so much so that even the subordinate second-floor supports a floor area that is greater than anticipated on the ground-floor.
100She is of the opinion that the proposed development, as it relates to FAR, is not considerate of the surrounding area’s built form or the subject lands’ reduced lot areas, and generate negative massing impacts to the streetscape and adjacent properties. She is particularly concerned with the requested FARs in conjunction with decreased setbacks, increased lot coverage, and increased dwelling depth (for 550 Burlington Avenue).
101As such, her opinion is that the requested variances for increased FAR for all three of the subject applications do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-Law.
Not Desirable
102While Ms. MacDonald-Plummer acknowledges that the subject lands are of smaller lot areas and irregular formations compared to most of the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct, new development should be tailored to the specific lot context to ensure appropriate setbacks, open space and building volume is provided, and respectful of the existing surrounding neighbourhood.
103The subject applications result in new development for all three subject properties that substantially maximize the building envelopes, do not promote compatible setbacks or space with the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct, and do not maintain Council’s expectations around new development in existing neighbourhoods.
104Her opinion is that the cumulative impact of all of the requested variances for all three subject properties results in an incompatible overdevelopment of the subject lands, and accordingly, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject properties.
105She opined that all of the requested variances for all three of the subject applications do not meet the general intent and purpose of the City’s OP or ZBL, and therefore, is also not desirable.
Not Minor
106The requested variances for all three of the subject applications facilitate developments that generate undue adverse impacts to the surrounding area, by way of massing, insufficient spatial separations, and functionality, Ms. MacDonald-Plummer added.
107The proposed development for all three of the subject applications results in a massing that is not apparent throughout the St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct. Existing two-storey dwellings in the surrounding area do not present massing, especially in the second-floor, as seen in the proposed development. Upper-level massing is often mitigated through the inclusion of design elements such as subordinate second-floors compared to first-floors, second-floor wall articulation, varying rooflines and depths, and dormers, or increased setbacks. Larger dwellings in the surrounding area tend to be situated on significantly larger lots, which naturally allow for more spatial separation.
108The proposed developments, in expanding the anticipated building envelopes in almost every aspect, exacerbates the irregular lot formation compared to the existing St. Luke’s Neighbourhood Precinct. Proposed development for the subject lots should be tailored to take the reduced lot sizes and surrounding neighbourhood into account. Ms. MacDonald-Plummer concluded that the variances are not minor in nature.
109The Tribunal finds that this matter presented a number of matters unique to the particular facts of this case. Both experts have rather entrenched opinions. The Tribunal is persuaded by and accepts the land use opinion evidence of Ms. MacDonald-Plummer over that of Mr. Barton. Ms. MacDonald-Plummer, in the Tribunal’s opinion, provided a comprehensive and methodical analysis of the significant failures of the proposed variances individually and cumulatively in particular in the area of FAR. The Tribunal notes that both experts are of the view that the applications are consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the intent of the ROP. This matter is mainly a localized matter evaluated against the City’s OP and the Zoning By-law.
110Although the City’s OP has been updated in 2020, it is under appeal and does not affect these applications, which are evaluated under the 1997 OP. There is agreement between the experts that the 1997 OP is determinative. There is no dispute between parties that the update to the ZBL in 2020 brought in two new performance standards that were not found in the previous version of the By-law, i.e., the Building Depth 18 m requirement and the FAR 0.45:1 requirement.
111The Parties are not disputing and the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed variance at the subject property has regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act.
112However, in the instant case, the Applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Act are met with: i.e., that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL, are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure and are minor in nature.
113In the event that any of the four tests is not met by the proposed variances, the applications will be rejected by this Tribunal.
114The Tribunal will state that the Applicant had in the Notices of Appeals only appealed the rejection of the FAR variances for each lot of the subject properties. The ostensible extrapolation is that all other variances has been approved by the COA while only the FAR variance was rejected.
115Nevertheless, the Tribunal needs to clarify that, despite the partial appeal of the rejected variance, at the appeal hearing before the Tribunal, ALL variances are freshly evaluated in the hearing anew (hearing de novo) and the three applications, with all requested for variances, are now before the Tribunal for adjudication. (see Lysyk v. Oshawa (City), [2017] O.M.B.D. No.723).
116The corollary is that the previous approvals relating to these same applications are irrelevant as the matters are evaluated against the tests that apply at the date of hearing.
117The Tribunal will emphasize too that every variance application is adjudicated upon its own particular facts, merits and circumstance. The fact that nearby properties had in the past (before the updated ZBL) been approved with higher lot coverage and floor space is also not relevant, for the purposes of evaluation of these variances before the Tribunal.
Official Plan
118The subject properties are subject to the St. Luke’s Precinct policies, which seek to preserve the stable residential and heritage character of these neighbourhoods and to ensure that any redevelopment is compatible with the “existing character of these neighbourhoods with respect to such matters as height, setbacks, massing, design and community features” (s. 5.5.4(d) 1997 OP (Page 392, Tab 6, Exhibit 1) The OP directs that “compatibility should be evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards where they exist based on criteria such as aesthetics…” (Page 442, Tab 6, Exhibit 1, Definition of Compatibility).
119Ms. MacDonald-Plummer took the Panel through her photographic evidence of the neighbourhood character, identifying it as one with substantially consistent setbacks to lot lines and the streetscape, significant rear yard setbacks that provide open green amenity space and corner lots with increased spatial separations and/or enhanced landscaping toward the street. She opined that while there is some diversity in built form ranging from one to two-storey detached dwellings, two storey dwellings tend to have a subordinate second floor area as compared to the first floor, walls with varying depths and stepbacks, and varying rooflines. Larger dwellings in the neighbourhood are situated on larger lots.
120As is apparent from the elevation drawings (Pages 821, 822, 828, 829, 837 and 838, Tab 11, Exhibit 1) and site plan (Exhibit 2), the proposed dwellings are not compatible with these neighbourhood characteristics. The subject lots have irregular formations and smaller areas compared to most in the immediate surrounding area. The failure to be sensitive to these site-specific features results in dwellings that do not provide appropriate spatial separations or outdoor space. For example, each of the three rear yards is occupied by the driveway and garage and/or significantly reduced. Whereas other corner lots in the neighbourhood provide increased open space and spatial separations, each of the dwellings on the proposed corner lots seek to reduce the rear yard to a size that is equal to or less than what would be a side yard (1.2 m and 1.8 m for 1385 Caroline St. and 548 Burlington Ave. respectively). As they are corner lots, and accordingly, can be viewed from both streets/lanes, the limited rear yards are not only experienced by the future residents and adjacent properties but have increased visibility from the streets.
121For the Tribunal, a development or redevelopment must be mindful of and sensitive to the neighbourhood character and compatibility to that character. There is evidence that here larger lots contain larger dwellings and corner lots have wider yards and green open space separation between dwellings. The proposed development will bunch or crowd three dwellings on the irregular lots, which was an original large lot, before consent severance. However, while fitting three dwellings on the subject properties, the three variance applications further seek to maximize the size and volume, by reducing all required yard setbacks coupled with increased lot coverages. Thus, the proposed dwellings mass is increased, affecting the aesthetics and character of this neighbourhood area.
122The Tribunal finds that the intent of the OP (s. 5.5.4(b)) is to preserve the St. Luke’s precinct established neighbourhood character and any new development or redevelopment must meet this OP objective. This redevelopment does not do so. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.
Zoning By-law (“ZBL”)
123City Council has amended the City’s ZBL to introduce a FAR standard of 0.45:1 and building depth with a maximum of 18 m. These standards were purposively adopted to limit the overall size and volume of buildings in the City’s existing neighbourhoods to encourage development that is considerate of the surrounding area’s built form. Each of the three dwellings before the Panel require significant FAR variances: 0.67:1, 0.64:1 and 0.65:1 respectively. FAR directly reflects the lot size to ensure that the massing of proposed development is not only compatible within the neighbourhood but is also proportionate to the specific lot. The FAR is an independent constraint of the amount of gross floor area that should be allowed on a specific site.
124In the Ontario Municipal Board (“Board”) case, Paglialunga, Re (1999) CarswellOnt 8082, the Board from paragraphs 5 to 9 opined, (and this Tribunal paraphrases):
The Floor space index (fsi) is to control massing and bulk. Such a standard, in this case 0.45 fsi is prescribed for the purpose of maintaining some degree of compatibility within the zone or neighbourhood. It is the very massing and bulk of the building that would result with a floor space index of 0.51 that offends Mrs. Sheryl Bannier and Ms Sharon Manchee. The immediate neighbour at 163 Parkhurst objects to the manner in which the proponent solicited letters of consent from neighbours and takes issue with the evidence given that to-day's lifestyle requires substantial living space. She believes that far greater emphasis could have been given to the aspects of the house such as windows, overlook and site lines which goes to the test of compatibility and providing a comfortable relationship between dwellings…The Board finds that the variance does not respect the intent and purpose of the By-law standard of floor space index in that it would produce a mass that is not appropriate development of this subject site in relation to its immediate neighbourhood. Therefore, the variance fails two (2) of the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
125The Paglialunga decision treated floor space index (“FSI”) (in the instant matter-FAR) as an equal consideration to the standards that identify the building envelope, as a constraint on the massing, scale or bulk of proposed building.
126The Tribunal concurs that the above case has a similar floor space ratio or index of 0.45:1 as the instant case. The intent of the FSI or in our case, FAR, is to ensure that an appropriate building mass is presented in a particular proposed development or redevelopment. If this FAR performance standard is disregarded, it will be rendered meaningless.
127It is not sufficient to identify the building envelope that is permitted by the setbacks contained in a ZBL and use that as the comparator to assess a proposed development. FAR requires that the massing of a proposal, even within a permitted building envelope, be subject to scrutiny. Applying FAR as an after-the-fact consideration, following the design of a proposed building or building envelope, overlooks the intent and purpose of including such a standard in the by-law.
128The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s approach in the instant case minimizes the independent value and clear intent of FAR, treating FAR as an afterthought to the building envelopes, setbacks and the architectural design of the proposed dwellings. This was evident both in the fact that the applications were not amended in response to the newly applicable FAR standards, and by the focus on Exhibit 2, which shows the proposals with the approximate required setbacks, but does not identify the restriction of FAR or Lot Coverage.
129The Tribunal agrees with Ms. MacDonald-Plummer who was consistent in her position that the proposed massing of the dwellings on the subject lots generate visible massing impacts to the streetscape and surrounding area, and do not maintain the intent and purpose of the updated ZBL.
130Ms. MacDonald-Plummer identified the intent and purpose of lot coverage, dwelling depth and setbacks, which is to promote compatibility by ensuring consistent and appropriate spatial separations, ensure an appropriate relationship between built form and open space and provide appropriate outdoor amenity area. These purposes are not being maintained by the subject applications. Each of the proposals provide insufficient rear yard amenity space. At 1385 Caroline St. and 548 Burlington Ave., the proposals provide 1.8 m and 1.2 m rear yard setbacks, less than even the more flexible standard of 4.5 m applicable to corner lots. While the proposal for 550 Burlington Avenue does not require a rear yard setback, the proposed massing and design in conjunction with the lot shape results in a rear yard that is almost entirely occupied by the proposed driveway.
131The Tribunal finds that Mr. Barton appears to dismiss the new performance standard FAR in a rather cavalier manner. He did not seriously consider the effect of the FAR and paid scant regard to the notion of overbuilding. He stated in testimony that it is just another tool and dismissively stated that it is a numbers concern and has no automatic impact on the character or compatibility of the neighbourhood.
132Mr. Barton admitted in cross examination that he did not consider a design change despite the new FAR standard of 0.45:1 that would require consideration that is separate from the lot coverage zoning standard. For the Tribunal, the advent of the new performance standard FAR, to be meaningful, requires a separate determination to limit the size, volume and massing of proposed dwellings.
133Mr. Barton, nevertheless proceeded with the applications’ previous design, the reduced yard setbacks, the increased lot coverages, which, when tabulated lead to FAR which are above the zoning standard. The resulting FARs for the Burlington Avenue proposed dwellings are 0.67:1 (for 548) ; 0.64:1 (for 550) and 0.65:1 (for 1385 Caroline Street), which exceed the 0.45:1 standard.
134Ms. Macdonald-Plummer had very clearly explained the effect and impact of the unwarranted disregard of the FAR standard. The Tribunal finds that, building this much above the FAR standard, coupled with the overall increase in lot coverages over the permitted 25% (noting: 39.2% (for 548 Burlington Avenue); 32.2% (for 550 Burlington Avenue) and 33.3% (for 1385 Caroline Street), together with the significant reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks, inevitably lead to size increase, massing and overdevelopment of the three parcels. The Tribunal finds the variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Desirability
135The development comprises irregularly shaped and relatively smaller lots. The failure to be sensitive to the characteristics of the subject lots in the context of this neighbourhood results in dwellings that maximize the proposed building envelopes, provide limited spatial separations and outdoor amenity spaces and that results in massing in proportions to the respective lots that are not generally found throughout the St. Luke’s Precinct. As identified through Ms. MacDonald-Plummer’s neighbourhood photographs, if approved, the dwellings will be visibly larger given the smaller lots and the absence of spatial separation, in a manner that impacts the existing character of the streetscape.
136Notably, though Mr. Barton identified two other dwellings that had received minor variances in the past (554 Burlington Ave. and 551 Hager Ave.), these were both approved prior to the adoption of a FAR standard. There is no evidence of any dwelling within the neighbourhood having received variances to the FAR since it was adopted. If approved, these applications would be the first to receive variances from this standard in the subject neighbourhood, and at 0.67:1, 0.64:1 and 0.65:1, the proposed FAR variances would represent the approval of a significant departure from the FAR of 0.45:1 as contemplated by the recently updated ZBL.
137The three proposed large dwellings on these irregularly shaped smaller lots in the neighbourhood, with the particular orientation of the oversized buildings (two corner lots and one intermediate) with reduced yard setbacks in effect reduces the amount of amenity spaces for the subject properties. These smaller lots should contain proportionately sized buildings instead of the proposed massive buildings. With the overdevelopment on the subject properties, there will be little spatial open spaces between these proposed dwellings. This is in stark contrast to the existing character of this neighbourhood, with green separation open spaces and appropriate amenity spaces at corner detached dwellings. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is not desirable or appropriate for the use or development of the subject properties.
Minor Nature
138The proposed development results in undue massing. The surrounding neighbourhood’s two-storey dwellings do not present massing, particularly, in the second-floor. In this area, massing on the second level is mitigated by design elements such as subordinate second-floors, varying rooflines depths, and dormers. Larger lots contain larger houses, and since lots are larger, there will naturally be more spatial separation between houses.
139The proposed development will result in overdevelopment with oversized dwellings relative to the lots sizes. The large buildings on those three lots will create adverse impacts upon the respective dwellings themselves. The effect of crowding the oversized dwellings on the subject properties, compounded by the massing would have adverse impacts on the public streetscape and the adjacent properties. The Tribunal finds that the variances are not minor in nature.
CONCLUSION
140The proposals did not heed the updated zoning performance standards introduced specifically to address overbuilding in the City’s existing neighbourhoods. The design disregarded the inherent irregularly shaped and smaller sized lots. The proposed development will result in dwellings that will be too large for the lots. There is no proper spatial separation with open spaces in between nor appropriate amenity space provided on the lots. This is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character of this area.
141The Tribunal finds that the variances sought do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and the ZBL. The proposed variances are not desirable for the appropriate use and development of the subject properties and the variances are not minor in nature.
ORDER
142The Tribunal Orders that the appeals are dismissed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2020 as amended are not authorized.
“T.F. Ng”
T.F. NG MEMBER
“Eric. S. Crowe”
Eric S. Crowe 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.