Medallion Developments (Castlefields) Limited v. Ajax (Town), 2022 CanLII 48598

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002467 (Formerly PL180017)

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

Applicant(s) and Appellant(s): Medallion Developments (Castlefields) Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the Town of Ajax to adopt the requested amendment

Property Address/Description: Northeast corner of Rossland Road East and Audley Road North

Municipality: Town of Ajax

Municipal File No.: OPA17-A1

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002467

Legacy Case No.: PL180017

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002467

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180017

OLT Case Name: Medallion Developments (Castlefields) Limited v. Ajax (Town)

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

Applicant(s) and Appellant(s): Medallion Developments (Castlefields) Limited

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 95-2003 – Refusal or neglect of the Town of Ajax to make a decision

Property Address/Description: Northeast corner of Rossland Road East and Audley Road North

Municipality: Town of Ajax

Municipal File No.: Z1/17

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002469

Legacy Case No.: PL180018

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002467

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180017

Heard: May 5, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Medallion Developments

Aaron Platt

(Castlefields) Limited

Andy Margaritis

Town of Ajax

Bruce Engell

DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND BITA M. RAJAEE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Medallion Developments (Castlefields) Limited (“Applicant”) applied to the Town of Ajax (“Town”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) for the property located on the Northeast corner of Rossland Road East and Audley Road North (“Subject Property”). The Town failed to make a decision within statutory timelines on both applications and the Applicant appealed to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

PROPOSAL

2The applications were submitted to facilitate the development of the Subject Property. The application went through a number of revisions to respond to concerns raised by the Town and the public.

3The current proposal for the Subject Property is for 1,251 residential rental apartment units and 53 townhouse units within five development blocks referred to as Blocks A – E. Block A is located on the western portion of the Subject Property and will contain a 15-storey apartment building. Blocks B, C and D will each contain eight-storey apartment buildings and Block E will contain an eight-storey mixed-use rental apartment building with 950 square metres of retail/commercial space. To the north of Blocks B, C and D will be a total of 53 three-storey townhouse dwellings. The Subject Property will also contain an underground parking and a small surface parking area. In the centre of the development blocks is a proposed 0.96 hectare Park Block (together referred to as the “Proposal”).

4The proposed OPA, attached as Schedule “A” to this Decision, will amend area specific policies to permit high rise apartments and multiple attached dwellings / block townhouses with a minimum height of three-storeys on land designated High Density Residential (Block A) and to increase the maximum permitted density from 185 to 650 units per net hectare.

5The proposed OPA will further permit mid-rise apartments and multiple attached dwellings / block townhouses with a minimum height of three-storeys; and increase the maximum permitted density from 75 to an average of 317 units per net hectare (Blocks B to D) and to 350 units per net hectare (Block E) on lands designated Medium Density Residential.

6The proposed ZBLA, attached as Schedule “B” to this Decision, will:

a. increase the maximum permitted density to reflect the proposed OPA;

b. permit multiple attached dwellings;

c. establish various development standards;

d. set an appropriate parking rate for the residential rental apartment units and for the proposed retail / commercial uses; and,

e. properly rezone lands currently zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) to permit a mixed-use, mid-rise residential building with ground level retail / commercial uses.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

7The Subject Property is comprised of four blocks with a total area of 4.4 hectares with approximately 554 metres of frontage on Rossland Road East and 347 metres frontage on Carberry/Mansbridge/Styles/Whitlock Crescents.

8The areas to the north and south of the Subject Property are residential subdivisions consisting of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units. The area to the east is designated Rural Area and is part of the Greenbelt. To the west is a stormwater management pond and beyond that is valley lands designated Environmental Protection.

9The Subject Property is considered a “Settlement Area” in both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). Both the PPS and Growth Plan focus on growth and development to Settlement Areas.

10The Subject Property is designated “Living Areas” in the Durham Region Official Plan (“DROP”), which are lands to be predominantly used for housing purposes and developed in compact form. The Town Official Plan (“TOP”) designates Block A of the Subject Property as Medium Density Residential (“MDR”) and the remainder of the Subject Property as High Density Residential (“HDR”) Area Specific Policy No. 6.2. The MDR permits a density range of 30 to 75 units per net hectare and the HDR permits a density range of 60 to 185 units per net hectare.

11The Town Zoning By-law No. 95-2003 (“ZBL”) zones the majority of the Subject Property as Residential Multiple Six (RM6), which permits Multiple Attached Dwellings up to a maximum height of 11 metres. The eastern portion of the Subject Property adjacent to the northwest corner of Rossland Road East and Audley Road North are zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (NC), which permits various commercial and retail enterprises. The Subject Property is subject to Exception 76 within the ZBL, which permits the additional use of Apartment Buildings.

HEARING

12These appeals were previously the subject of three Case Management Conferences (“CMCs”) and have been governed by a Procedural Order and Issues List. Castlefields Residents Association Corporation (“Association”) was granted Party status at the third CMC.

13The Applicant and the City notified the Tribunal during the second CMC that Town Council approved a negotiated settlement proposal relating to the OPA and ZBLA.

14The week prior to the Hearing, the Applicant submitted motion materials to the Tribunal seeking to have the Association removed as a Party for failure to comply with directions and Orders issued by the Tribunal. Subsequent to the filing of motion materials, the Association advised the Tribunal that it wished to withdraw its status as a Party to the Hearing.

15The Hearing before the Tribunal was converted to a settlement Hearing.

16As evidence in the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following exhibits which were identified sequentially during the hearing:

a. Exhibit 1: The Original Affidavit of Service of the Notice

b. Exhibit 2: The Applicant’s Document Book

c. Exhibit 3: The Applicant’s Supplementary Document Book

d. Exhibit 4: The Applicant’s Visual Evidence Book

e. Exhibit 5A: The CV of Scott Waterhouse

f. Exhibit 5B: The Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty of Scott Waterhouse

g. Exhibit 6: The Witness Statement of Scott Waterhouse dated March 4, 2022

17The Applicant called Scott Waterhouse as its planning witness who was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert evidence in the area of Land Use Planning. Mr. Waterhouse’s CV and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty were filed as Exhibits 5A and 5B respectively. He provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the proposed settlement and reviewed the PPS, Growth Plan, TOP, and DROP.

18Mr. Waterhouse opined that the OPA and ZBLA before the Tribunal, and the development that these instruments will facilitate, satisfy all legislative tests under the Act, as they have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2; are consistent with the PPS and Growth Plan; conform with the TOP and DROP and overall, constitute good planning.

19During the course of his testimony, Mr. Waterhouse addressed concerns raised by the Association, the former Party involved in this matter, and responded to the specific issues listed by the Association on their Issues List, despite their withdrawal from the Hearing. Of note, parking and transportation issues were previously struck from the Association’s issues list, but general traffic matters were addressed by Mr. Waterhouse.

20In support of his overall conclusions, he noted the Subject Property is currently vacant, consisting of four separate properties totalling approximately 4.4. hectares (10.9 acres) located at the northwest corner of Rossland Road East and Audley Road North. The Subject Property is intended for residential use and the proposed development will contribute to a mix of housing options, making efficient use of land, existing infrastructure and services.

21Mr. Waterhouse opined that a number of technical reports support the OPA and ZBLA before the Tribunal, as well as the Proposal, including:

a. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report: The Subject Property can be serviced via existing sanitary sewer and watermain services. The Proposal can be serviced without the need to upgrade or expand facilities and infrastructure.

b. Transportation Impact Study: The existing road network could support 357 new residential units. Constraints were observed at the Rossland Road East and Salem Road intersection, and changes were recommended, including the widening of Rossland Road to two through lanes per direction to accommodate the future background conditions and future total traffic movements. The plan has been put into place, in agreement with the Town, to pursue to the widening of Rossland Road. With respect to parking, it was found that the suggested parking supply was sufficient, considering the intensity of residential development, the intent to support transit, and the active transportation objectives of the Town.

c. Sun Shadow Study: The study indicated that there would be minimal shadow impact on the existing neighbouring developments.

d. Building Section Plans and 45 Degree Angular Plane: All of the proposed apartment buildings are set below the 45 degree angular plane projection. Mr. Waterhouse went into detail explaining that when looking at compatibility in the TOP, a 45 degree angular plane must be achieved to ensure sun and sky access to existing neighbourhoods.

22Mr. Waterhouse took the Tribunal through various policies of the PPS and Growth Plan and agreed with the Town’s planning staff that the Proposal is consistent with and conforms to the policies contained in both. Mr. Waterhouse opined that the Proposal provides a mix and range of rental dwelling units to provide housing options for residents at all stages of life. The Proposal will be well served by available sanitary and water services and the designated elementary school site.

23Mr. Waterhouse reviewed policies of the DROP with the Tribunal and concluded that the Proposal conforms, which he noted is an opinion that is shared by Town and Regional planning staff. The Proposal will increase the housing supply in a transit-supportive manner. The DROP encourages higher density along arterial roads and the proposed apartment buildings are located adjacent to Rossland Road, which is designated as an arterial road. The Proposal will efficiently use available infrastructure and public service facilities, including the Municipal Fire Station, which is less than 1 kilometre away from the Subject Property.

24Mr. Waterhouse testified that the TOP identifies Rossland Road as a Local Corridor and recognizes these as lands suitable for infill development and/or re-development. The TOP states that lands along intensification corridors within the MDR designation may be developed up to eight storeys in height provided the landowner enters into an agreement with the Town to provide a significant public benefit under the height and density bonusing provisions of its OP, which is the case here. It was also highlighted that the intent of the Living Areas designation was for compact housing form through higher densities and intensification in existing urban areas, specifically along arterial roads. Existing town services, including Town Emergency Services did not identify any concerns with the Proposal and noted that they were capable of providing services to Subject Property once developed.

25Mr. Waterhouse summarized that the Proposal was in accordance with planning policies and represented an efficient, transit supportive development and appropriate residential intensification to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. Moreover, the Subject Property is situated within an existing urban, residential area and there were no environmental or public health concerns identified.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

26The Tribunal accepts the uncontradicted planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Waterhouse and finds the development of the Subject Property as proposed, aligns with good land use planning, satisfies all legislative tests as detailed above and warrants approval.

27The Proposal is consistent with policy directives of the PPS and conforms to the policy intent of the Growth Plan, TOP and DROP. The Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and is in the public interest.

28In particular, the Proposal supports provincial initiatives and policy directives aimed at encouraging a mix of housing options. Moreover, it represents an efficient, transit supportive development and appropriate residential intensification to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed amendments to the OPA and ZBLA implement the development of the Subject Property in the manner being proposed.

INTERIM ORDER

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 30 below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Schedules A and B to this Interim Order are hereby approved in principle.

30The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon satisfactory fulfillment of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. Transmission to the Tribunal by the Town Solicitor of the final forms of the amendments to the Town of Ajax Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 95-2003 generally in accordance with Schedules A and B to this Interim Order;

b. Confirmation by the Town Solicitor that an agreement pursuant to s. 37.1 of the Planning Act has been executed by the Applicant and the Town and registered on title to the Subject Property; and,

c. Withdrawal by the Applicant of its appeal of Town Official Plan Amendment No. 41.

31The Panel Members are not seized but will remain available for case management.

32If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 30 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order on or before October 5, 2022, the Applicant and the Town shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.

33The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional time lines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

MEMBER

“B. Rajaee”

b. rajaee

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.