Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001349

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

Applicant and Appellant: Polocorp Inc.

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

Existing Zoning: OS1 and R2

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit 185 residential units with a mix of single detached, townhouse and stacked townhouse units

Property Address/Description: 155 and 171 Guelph Avenue

Municipality: City of Cambridge

Municipality File No.: R12/18

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001349

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001349

OLT Case Name: Polocorp Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Polocorp Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of City of Cambridge to make a decision

Purpose: To permit 185 residential units with a mix of single detached, townhouse and stacked townhouse units

Property Address/Description: 155 and 171 Guelph Avenue

Municipality: City of Cambridge

Municipal File No.: 30T-18103

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001349

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001350

Heard: May 20, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Polocorp Inc.	Steven O’Melia
City of Cambridge	Nicole Auty
Regional Municipality of Waterloo	Fiona McCrea
Derek Coleman	Susan Rosenthal

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL ON MAY 20, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Introduction

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal by Polocorp Inc. (the “Appellant”) under subsections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act with respect to the City of Cambridge’s failure to deal with the Appellant’s proposed application for a Zoning By-law Amendment and associated Draft Plan of Subdivision within the prescribed timeframe.

2This was the third Case Management Conference (the “CMC”), intended to provide the Tribunal with a status update on mediation efforts.

3In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received a proposed settlement on consent of the Parties, with an accompanying affidavit from David Butler, the Appellant’s expert land use planner.

Area Context

4The property is municipally known as 155 and 171 Guelph Avenue (the “Property”) and is located on the east side of Guelph Avenue, south of Shaw Avenue East.

5The Property is 5.25 hectares in size and contains two single detached dwellings, accessory structures, and ruins of a former accessory structure. The Appellant proposes to retain the heritage dwelling on its own estate lot. The site is well treed, and the Appellant has provided a Tree Management Plan as part of the submission, which has been reviewed by staff and will be considered as a condition of the draft approval.

6North and west of the Property are single detached dwellings. South of the Property are industrial properties with the Hespeler Core area further to the south. East of the property is the Speed River.

The Settlement Proposal

7The original development proposal was for a total of 210 residential units including a mix of single detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings and 138 apartment units in a 12-storey apartment building. As a result of the comments received through the public consultation process and discussions with staff, the Appellant eliminated the proposed apartment building and replaced it with stacked townhouse units, thereby reducing the overall unit count from 210 to a maximum of 185 units, with a mix of freehold single detached, condominium single detached, townhouse and stacked townhouse units.

8The Appellant has agreed to eliminate the seven freehold lots proposed to front onto Guelph Avenue and have the residential units within the plan of subdivision instead obtain access to Guelph Avenue by way of a condominium road. These changes result in the preservation of additional existing trees on the Property. An additional “no development” area is proposed along the western end of the Property adjacent to Guelph Avenue as well as along the north portion of the Property that abuts existing homes along Shaw Avenue.

9On consent of the Parties, the proposed development concept was entered as Exhibit 1 and titled “Forbes Development Concept”. This Development Concept is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision.

10The Tribunal also received the Draft Zoning By-law, the Draft Plan of Subdivision, and the Conditions of the Draft Plan Approval, which are attached as Schedules 2, 3 and 4 to this Decision.

The Hearing

11This was a Settlement Hearing as the Appellant and the City of Cambridge have mutually reached a settlement proposal, endorsed by all Parties.

12Mr. David Butler, an expert in land use planning for the Appellant, was available at the Hearing but was not required to give oral testimony.

Planning Evidence

13A written Affidavit was provided by Mr. Butler with respect to the proposed development.

14Mr. Butler’s written affidavit provided the Tribunal with a thorough review of the proposal through the lens of provincial policy and the City’s and Region’s Official Plans. Mr. Butler notes that the development plan, as enabled by the settlement documents, will create needed housing units and result in the provision of suitable forms of housing, compatibility with the adjoining neighbourhood, preservation of a heritage building, and beneficial open space.

15Mr. Butler also stated that an additional “no development” area is proposed along the western end of the Property adjacent to Guelph Avenue as well as along the north portion of the Property that abuts existing homes along Shaw Avenue.

16Mr. Butler concluded that, in his expert opinion, the proposed residential development appropriately addresses the matters of provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), satisfies the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act for Draft Plan Approval and conforms with the Region’s and City’s Official Plans.

Analysis and Disposition

17Based on the written Affidavit provided by Mr. Butler, and the fact that the proposed development is on consent of all Parties, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement for the residential infill development appropriately addresses the matters of provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), satisfies the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act for the Draft Plan Approval and conforms with the Region’s and City’s Official Plans.

Order

18The Tribunal Orders that the Appeal is allowed and the Zoning By-law for the subject Property is approved in the form attached as Schedule 2.

19The Tribunal Orders that the Appeal is allowed, and the draft plan prepared by Ted Ims, O.L.S. dated February 26, 2020, attached as Schedule 3, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the Draft Plan Approval as set out in Schedule 4 to this Order.

20The Tribunal Orders that, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo shall have the authority to clear the conditions of the Draft Plan Approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of section 51(58) of the Planning Act.

21There shall be no costs awarded in respect of this Appeal.

22In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of the Draft Plan Approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“T. Prevedel”

T. PREVEDEL 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.

SCHEDULE 1