Oakdale Trails Inc. v. Town of LaSalle, 2022 CanLII 58201

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001431

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Oakdale Trails Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: Appeal to the Town's new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law

Reference Number: By-law No. 8600

Property Address: Various Addresses

Municipality/UT: LaSalle/Essex

OLT Case No: OLT-21-001431

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001431

OLT Case Name: Oakdale Trails v. La Salle (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Request by: Oakdale Trails Inc.

Request for: Request for an Order Dismissing the Appeal

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Town of LaSalle

Domenic Dadalt

Oakdale Trails Inc.

Jeffrey Hewitt

DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Town of LaSalle (“Moving Party”) has brought a motion seeking an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal by Oakdale Trails Inc. (“Respondent”) from the passing of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (“By-law 8600”), pursuant to s. 34(25)(1)(i) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

2By-law 8600 prescribes land-use and development related standards/regulations and repeals and replaces former Comprehensive Zoning By-law (“CZBL”) 5050. By-law 8600 was adopted by Town Council on August 24, 2021, and subsequently appealed by the Respondent.

BACKGROUND TO BY-LAW 8600

3The CZBL is the Town’s land use regulatory document and a building permit cannot be issued unless it complies with the regulations contained therein.

4By-law 8600 was prepared and adopted by Town Council under s. 34 of the Planning Act, and prescribes a broad range of land use and development related regulations, including:

• Permitted land uses and what buildings and structures can be built in various zone categories town wide;

• Where buildings and structures can be built, and how high, how large, and how close buildings and structures can be built to lot lines;

• Lot sizes and what servicing requirements must be in place before a building permit can be obtained; and

• Minimum parking standards for various building and land use types.

5Virtual Public information meetings were held on May 27, 2021 and June 10, 2021, with the requisite statutory public meeting being held on June 29, 2021.

6In the course of all three of these meetings Town staff together with the Town’s Planning Consultant (Ron Palmer) made presentations that included an overview of the contents of By-law 8600 and the key regulatory changes that were being introduced.

7Members of the public in attendance at these meetings were provided with an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, and encouraged to provide written submissions in advance of the June 29, 2021 statutory public meeting and/or to contact Town Planning staff for more information.

8In a final report to the Mayor and Council (Report DS-32-2021) prepared by the Town’s Supervisor of Planning and Development Services (Allen Burgess) and dated July 30, 2021, it was recommended that the report be received and that Council adopt the final draft of the By-law 8600, as revised and presented, and repeal By-law 5050.

9By-law 8600 was adopted by Town Council at the August 24, 2021 Council meeting. The Notice of Passing of By-law 8600 was issued by the municipal Clerk on August 31, 2021.

10The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion included:

1. Motion Record of the Town dated January 18, 2021, containing the Affidavit of Jonathan Osbourne, P. Eng. (Town Director of Public Works) sworn January 12, 2022; the Affidavit of Ron Palmer (Planning Consultant for the Town of LaSalle) sworn January 13, 2022, and the Affidavit of Service served on January 13, 2022.

2. Reply to the Response to the Motion by the Respondent, containing the Affidavit of Allen Burgess sworn January 24, 2022; the Affidavit of Angela Toole (Executive Assistance to the Director of Council Services) sworn January 24, 2022; the Affidavit of Ron Palmer sworn January 24, 2022, and the Affidavit of Service served on January 25, 2022.

3. Response by the Respondent to the Motion and Authorities (Volume 1), and the Affidavit of Jacqueline Lassaline (land use planner) sworn on January 13, 2022 and Exhibits (Volume 2) and the Affidavit of Service served on January 20, 2022.

GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

11The Moving Party is seeking an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Respondent, pursuant to s. 34(25)(1)(i) of the Act, and any such further and/or other relief as the Tribunal may deem just.

12The Moving Party takes the position that there is no genuine issue requiring a hearing. Furthermore, the Respondent has filed an incomplete appeal, relying mainly on a written letter of objection to By-law 8600, and without reference to a relevant section of the Planning Act.

13On August 24, 2021, Pietro Valente emailed a letter of objection to By-law 8600 just prior to the scheduled Council meeting at which the final report and form of By-law 8600 was to be considered by Council.

14The letter included concerns about the permitted heights of buildings, and the capacity of sanitary sewers due to increased density from taller buildings. The Moving Party submits that the Respondent’s written letter of objection did not include substantive reasoning under the Planning Act.

15The appeal by the Respondent only made reference to the Town Centre One (TC1) zone in its appeal, while the written objection of August 24, 2021 includes lands designated in the TC1 Zone, the Town Centre One Holding (TC1(h)) and the Town Centre Two Holding (TC2(h)) zones, rendering the nature of the objection unclear.

16Ron Palmer is a Registered Professional Planner and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the American Planners Association with over 38 years of related experience.

17Mr. Palmer confirmed in his Affidavit that he was previously engaged as the Town’s planning consultant throughout the drafting of the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”). The OP was adopted by Town Council in 2018 following a consultation process that in his opinion, far exceeded the requirements of the Planning Act. The Town-adopted OP was subsequently approved by the County of Essex. Mr. Palmer affirmed that to the best of his knowledge, the Respondent did not raise any concerns with the OP throughout that process.

18Mr. Palmer worked in conjunction with the Town’s planning staff in the drafting of By-law 8600. He confirmed in his Affidavit that the first draft of By-law 8600 and the corresponding background report were posted on the Town’s website on May 12, 2021, and notice was published in the local newspaper on May 14, 2021. Notice of virtual public information meetings to be held on May 27, 2021 and June 29, 2021, were sent out by the Town in the form of media releases, social media posts, and electronic newsletters, as well as being posted on the digital sign at the municipal Civic Centre building.

19In the course of these meetings Town staff together with Mr. Palmer made presentations that included an overview of the contents of By-law 8600 and the key regulatory changes that were being introduced.

20Members of the public and Council member attendees at these meetings were provided with an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Members of the public were further encouraged to make written submissions in advance and following the statutory public meeting to be held on June 29, 2021. Thereafter, Mr. Palmer and Town planning staff reviewed all submitted comments and considered the changes that were being requested. In each case a response or recommendation was provided. Mr. Palmer affirmed that to the best of his knowledge no comments or requested changes were received from, or on behalf of the Respondent.

21Mr. Palmer confirmed he was the principal author of the OP adopted by Council in 2018. In his professional opinion both the OP and implementing By-law 8600 were drafted in compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement in order to achieve comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning while protecting provincial interests and directing appropriate development to suitable areas within the Town. In his opinion, by directing apartment and/or condominium type dwellings to the Town Central District, By-law 8600 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”).

22Mr. Palmer cited s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, which provides the authority for the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) to, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, to dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if, (i) the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal.

23It is his professional opinion that the appeal by the Respondent has no planning merits. The Respondent’s appeal form does not reference a section of the Planning Act that By-law 8600 violates. In his opinion, By-law 8600 conforms with the requirements of the Planning Act.

24Jonathan Osbourne is the Town’s Director of Public Works. In his Affidavit he responds to the concern raised by the Respondent in the August 24, 2021 letter of objection in regard to the sanitary sewer capacity within the TC1 Zone as it relates to increased flows created by increased density.

25Mr. Osbourne pointed out that the Town’s OP as adopted in 2018 requires that adequate municipal and water services be made available for any new development. The drawing submitted with the August 24, 2021 letter identifies “areas of objection” that lie in the TC1, (TC1(h)) and (TC2(h)) Zones.

26Mr. Osbourne asserts that based on the Town’s capacity allowance in the identified areas there are no servicing issues with respect to municipal water services or municipal sanitary services capacity. Moreover, as future development proceeds in these areas the Town has the ability to collect a capital contribution from developers to upgrade the local sanitary collection system through future development agreements, effectively ensuring that all future capacity requirements are met.

27On this basis, it is his professional opinion that the sanitary service capacity concerns raised in the Respondent’s letter of objection on August 24, 2021 are without merit.

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION

28The Respondent is seeking an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the Motion; its costs of the Motion; and such further and other relief as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may permit.

29As the owner of lands within the Town and municipally known as 5840 Newman Boulevard, the Respondent received notification that By-law 8600 was to be considered by Town Council at a meeting on August 24, 2021.

30On or about August 11, 2021, the Respondent’s representative, Petro Valente, emailed Town planning staff and its Consultant Planner Ronald Palmer requesting a meeting to have items contained within By-law 8600 clarified. In response to this request a virtual zoom meeting was held on August 23, 2021.

31The following day, on August 24, 2021, the Respondent submitted a letter to Council in which he provided a list of issues of concern he claims were identified in the course of that meeting, but not resolved. The letter was not entered into the public documents record for the August 24, 2021 meeting at which a presentation was made by Town staff, its planning consultant and author of By-law 8600.

32The OLT Appeal Form included the letter of objection that was addressed to Council and submitted electronically to the attention of the Clerk’s Office on August 24, 2022.

33The Respondent asserts the test for determining whether an appeal should be dismissed without a hearing is set out in s. 34(25) of the Act:

Dismissal without hearing

(25) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (24), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:

1. The Tribunal is of the opinion that,

i. the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal,

ii. the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious,

iii. the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or

iv. the appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced before the Tribunal proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.

34The Respondent submits that in consideration the principles of Toronto (City) v East Beach Community Association (1996), CarswellOnt 5740, [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890, 42 O.M.B.R. 505 and applying s. 34(25) of the Act, the Motion should be dismissed and the appeal by the Respondent allowed to proceed to a hearing.

35In that regard, it is a well established principle that upon a motion to dismiss an appeal the Tribunal may look beyond the written reasons listed in the Notice of Appeal to determine whether there are genuine, authentic, and legitimate planning issues to be adjudicated. Moreover, the Tribunal’s accepted process on a motion to dismiss is to consider the entire record provided in response to the Motion – not just the contents of the appeal letter. An Appellant may elaborate and clarify the grounds for appeal (Re Luigi Stornelli Ltd. and Centre City Capital Ltd., (1985) 677, 1985 CanLII 2057 (ON HCJ), 17 O.M.B.R. 323, 30 M.P.L.R. 18, 30 A.C.W.S. (2d) 526, 50 O.R. (2d) 417) 7 O.A.C. 318.

36To this end, the Respondent provided the Affidavit of Jacqueline Lassaline, an experienced Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Provincial Planners Institute. She was retained by the Respondent in January 2022.

37In Ms. Lassaline’s professional opinion By-law 8600 is not consistent with the policies of the PPS; does not conform with the relevant policies of the Town OP; does not maintain the intent of the CZBL; and does not represent good planning. By-law 8600 as it applies to the lands subject to the appeal is not consistent with, and does not have sufficient regard for, matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Planning Act, in as much as it allows for greater height and density for the affected lands through the expansion of the regulatory framework without regard for the impact on the neighbourhood and the community (s. 2(h)); and does not protect the existing residential housing from conflict (s. 2(n)). In fact, it is her professional opinion that By-law 8600 as it relates to the TC1 and TC2 Zones effectively promotes land use conflict.

38Ms. Lassaline pointed out that the PPS, the policy direction of the Province, and the Town OP provide policies for directing sound planning to protect established neighbourhoods. In her opinion, By-law 8600 is not consistent with the PPS and OP policies and does not represent sound land use planning.

39In her professional opinion, the increased height and massing allowed by By-law 8600 promotes land use conflicts in the surrounding neighbourhood. The former CZBL, By-law 5050, only allowed for low rise development with a maximum of three storey buildings within a neighbourhood. By-law 8600 promotes the creation of land use conflicts by allowing for higher density and massing of residential buildings without the necessary justification or rationale for the land use. In her view, Town Council adopted By-law 8600 without having due regard for the potential development conflict(s) to existing neighbourhoods from negative repercussions associated with the increased density.

40In her opinion, By-law 8600 also does not conform with several policies of the Town OP. These lands that are the subject of the appeal are identified as “Town Centre” in the OP. The Town Centre designation allows for the development of this area of the municipality with a mix of uses including residential development.

41In conformity with the OP policy direction, sound planning and policies direct that By-law 8600 should place appropriate limits on the size, height, massing and location of new residential structures to ensure new development is consistent and compatible with the existing neighbourhood massing and density.

42In her professional planning opinion By-law 8600 does not provide for compatibility and does not conform with the OP, and by extension, the decision of Council to adopt By-law 8600 is not consistent with the PPS and the Healthy Community policies of the Province, and is not in conformity with policies of the OP supporting compatible development.

43Ms. Lassaline contends that Mr. Valente (Respondent) relied on his participation with Town staff together with the written letter of objection provided to Council at the public meeting prior to the adoption of By-law 8600, which in her view constitute reasonable planning grounds upon which the Tribunal can consider the appeal.

44The Respondent participated in the discussion on the merits of the new CZBL and provided land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal. The letter of objection provided to Town staff and Council, and submitted with the appeal application, identifying the change in building height is a valid planning concern as it creates conflicts related to shadows and increased traffic due to the higher density. Under normal practices the increase in height would warrant the provision of studies and reports, such as traffic and shadow studies.

45The appeal application form was accompanied by the letter of objection outlining clear planning grounds for the appeal, specifically, in identifying that the density purported in By-law 8600 (TC1 and TC2 Zones) and being considered by Council would have a deleterious and negative impact on both the existing and future development. Given the absence of a regulatory framework that would control massing and height to ensure compatibility of new development, it is her opinion that the decision of Council to adopt By-law 8600 was not sound planning.

46On the basis of the foregoing, it is her professional opinion that the Respondent has met the necessary requirements of a valid appeal and provided sufficient planning rationale for the OLT’s consideration of the appeal. The Respondent participated in the discussion on the merits of By-law 8600 and provided legitimate land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal can allow all or part of the appeal.

47It is also her professional opinion that considering that the Respondent is a landowner in the Town, the Tribunal must look beyond the technical wording of the letter provided as justification for the appeal and see that the Respondent has sufficiently disclosed and outlined the issues of concern with sufficient grounds to allow the appeal to continue to a Tribunal hearing.

REPLY SUBMISSIONS

48The Moving Party submits that Mr. Valente has been correctly identified as the owner of the lands located at 5840 Newman Boulevard, and is the sole Director and Officer of the Respondent.

49While Mr. Valente owns and developed this particular parcel of land there are also other properties within the TC1 and TC2 Zones that are related to this property in that there are similar controlling corporate interests. Among these, Mr. Valente is a Director and Officer of Creekside LaSalle Ltd. (“Creekside”) that has lands in the TC2 Zone. The Creekside lands are currently undergoing the construction of three condominium buildings utilizing the height allowances found in the Town’s OP as adopted in 2018.

50Allan Burgess is the Town’s Supervisor of Planning. He affirmed in his Affidavit that he is familiar with Mr. Valente as he has been involved in numerous developments throughout the Town. It is his understanding that Mr. Valente is not only the owner and sole Director and Officer of Oakdale, he also is a Director and Officer of Malden Plaza Inc., (“Madden”), and the sole Director and Officer of Creekside LaSalle Ltd. Mr. Burgess affirmed there are land holdings owned by Malden and Creekside located within both the TC1 and TC2 zones, and within close proximity to the lands that are the subject of the appeal.

51Mr. Burgess confirmed he was directly involved in the approval and development agreement process for a development by Creekside that is currently under construction in the TC2 Zone to the southeast. The approval process for the Creekside development involved obtaining Council approval for one four-storey building and two six-storey condominium buildings on a parcel of land abutting a residential zone.

52Mr. Burgess confirmed that Town planning staff received notification from Mr. Valente requesting a meeting to discuss concerns he had with By-law 8600. He along with other Town planning staff met with Mr. Valente and his planning consultant, Karl Tanner of Dillon Consulting Limited via video conference the morning of August 23, 2021. Prior to the meeting, he received an email from Mr. Tanner identifying four particular items requiring clarification, none of which involve matters located in either of the Town Centre zones, and to the best of his recollection neither Mr. Valente nor Mr. Tanner raised any issues within the Town Centre Zones at any point in the meeting.

53Following from the meeting, and after reviewing the list of delegates for the August 24, 2021 Council meeting (which included Mr. Valente), he sent an email to the Town Clerk and the Mayor indicating it would be unlikely that Mr. Valente would be speaking at the Council meeting.

54However, approximately one and a half hours before the scheduled start time of the Council meeting, the Clerk’s Department forwarded written correspondence from Mr. Valente expressing concerns about the westernmost properties affected by By-law 8600. Mr. Burgess indicated he was surprised by the contents of the letter as there had not been any previous discussion on this despite multiple public information sessions and requests for submissions on the topic.

55The pertinent content of the letter is as follows:

Oakdale Trails would like to oppose the zoning change to the following lands (shown on the attached Map01).

We respectfully submit that the new zoning allows for buildings with significant increased density over the current zoning, and the height proposed allows for 6 storey buildings to be constructed on these lands.

When Oakdale Trails Inc. built it’s development in this area, it was limited to 3 storey buildings with a maximum height of 10.5m. I feel this would be more appropriate for this area. I am also concerned that the Town’s sanitary sewers in this area to handle the increased flow from the increased density permitted (sic). We feel the Town should study this further to confirm that it has the necessary infrastructure in order to serve the increase in density.

This is consistent with our objection to a site specific zoning made at 1730 and 1740 Sprucewood Ave.

56Mr. Valente was a registered delegation for the April 24, 2021 Council meeting, but when called upon the Mayor to address Council, he did not respond and it appeared he was not logged into the zoom call.

57Mr. Burgess maintains that the concerns raised in the Oakdale Trails Inc. letter are largely addressed in Report DS-32-2021, and during the oral presentation to Council.

58Angela Toole is the Executive Assistant to the Town’s Director of Council Services. One of her duties is to ensure that anyone wishing to speak at a meeting of Council is registered as a delegate and provided a zoom link to the meeting.

59Ms. Toole confirmed that on August 9, 2021, she provided notice to Mr. Valente that the new CZBL (By-law 8600) would be addressed at the Council meeting scheduled for August 24, 2021. On that same day, Mr. Valente indicated that he wished to participate in the said Council meeting (correspondence included as Exhibit A to her Affidavit).

60On August 23, 2021, Ms. Toole provided the zoom link for the meeting of Council to Mr. Valente. Mr. Valente contacted Ms. Toole by email the afternoon of August 24, 2021, indicating he did not receive the zoom link. She affirmed in her Affidavit that she provided the information again via forwarding the email of the previous day containing the meeting information (copy of correspondence with her affidavit).

61In response to the Affidavit evidence of Ms. Lassaline, Mr. Palmer reaffirmed it is his professional opinion that the Town OP conforms with all relevant Provincial legislation and policies and is consistent with the PPS as determined by the Province through their review of the OP. The OP also conforms to the County of Essex OP, as confirmed and demonstrated by the County’s approval of the Town OP.

62Mr. Palmer reiterated that the 2018 OP establishes the fundamental principles for the future development of the Town; specifically, the OP establishes the urban structure of the Town and includes land use designations and policies intended to facilitate the achievement of that urban structure including within the Town Centre District. To the best of his knowledge the Respondent did not raise any concerns with the OP throughout that process, nor did he appeal the OP.

63Mr. Palmer reconfirmed his opinion that By-law 8600 conforms with all relevant legislation and policies and is consistent with the PPS. Of significance, By-law 8600 conforms with, and implements the fundamental principles of the approved OP and more specifically, the intent, permitted uses and development policies of the Town Centre District designation.

64It is his professional opinion, that: a) Both the OP and By-law 8600 are drafted to achieve comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning while protecting Provincial interests and directing appropriate development to suitable areas within the Town; and b) ZBL 8600 appropriately conforms with and implements the Town OP, represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

65In deciding this Motion the Tribunal has considered the arguments of counsel and the witness statement Affidavits provided by the Moving Party and the Respondent.

66As identified previously in this decision, s. 34(25) of the Planning Act establishes the circumstances under which the Tribunal can dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing. In addition, s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”) provides the authority for the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing if it is of the opinion that the proceeding has “no reasonable prospect of success”.

67In this case, the Tribunal finds that the appeal warrants scrutiny under s. 34(25) 1. i. and ii) of the Planning Act – i) the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal, and ii) the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious; and s. 19(1)(c) of the OLTA - if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal need only find that any one of these reasons apply to dismiss the appeal.

68The reason for the appeal as set out in the Appeal Form is as follows:

“We have concerns with the maximum building height permitted in the Town Centre 1 (TC1) zone. Specifically maximum building height & minimum lot size, as it relates to density”.

69The Respondent also relies on the letter of objection dated August 24, 2021, as the grounds for the appeal (referred to in paragraph 55 of this Decision).

70It is well established that when examining a notice of appeal for land use planning grounds, the Tribunal should look beyond the text of the notice and ask whether there are genuine, legitimate and authentic reasons worthy of the adjudicative process (East Beach Community Assn., v Toronto (City), [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890 1996 CarswellOnt 5740 (para 9). It is equally well established that it is not enough to simply raise an apprehension of impact.

71In the case at hand, upon examining the notice of appeal and the supplementary letter of objection, and having considered the planning evidence of Ms. Lassaline the Tribunal has not been convinced that there is a reasonable probability that the appeal will meet with success in a hearing on the merits.

72The Tribunal finds that the appeal record inclusive of the letter of objection does not disclose any genuine and/or legitimate land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal can conclude there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be successful. It follows from that the appeal is frivolous in nature.

73In arriving at this decision, the Tribunal accepts the Affidavit evidence of Mr. Palmer wherein he confirms that By-law 8600 implements the fundamental principles and development policies of the Town Centre District designation of the OP. Essentially, By-law 8600 provides the means to achieve comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning while protecting provincial interests and directing appropriate development to suitable areas within the Town as established by the OP. In other words, By-law 8600 appropriately facilitates and implements the where and how to develop the lands within the municipality. The Respondent did not refute or otherwise raise any objections to the policy direction established in the 2018 OP, nor did he appeal the adoption of the OP.

74There are essential two issues raised by the appeal. The first relates to the impact of building height and density, and increased traffic. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Respondent prefers a different building format, specifically as it relates to the height of the buildings in certain zones. However, the preferred building format of the Respondent is not a legitimate land use planning issue that is worthy of the adjudicative process.

75In term of building height and density, the Tribunal notes that the angular plane calculation will be applied where any development site abuts the R1, R2 and R3 Zones along an interior side yard or rear yard. In regard to the concern about traffic, as part of a future development application the developer will be required to submit traffic engineering reports to address transportation-related improvements necessary to support new development.

76In regard to the second issue, the capacity of the Town’s sanitary sewers, the Tribunal accepts the Affidavit evidence and opinion of Jonathan Osbourne that there are no servicing issues with respect to municipal water and sewer capacity. Moreover, the OP requires that adequate water and sewer servicing be made available for future development. The Town has the ability to collect a capital contribution from developers to upgrade the local sanitary collection system through future development agreements at the time that development occurs.

77In assessing whether the reasons set out in the appeal record including the letter of objection are genuine and legitimate land use planning issues, the Tribunal notes that in the letter of objection the Respondent indicates a preference for a maximum three-storey building height. In that regard, Ms. Lassaline has espoused the view that the “increased height and massing allowed by By-law 8600 promotes land use conflicts in the surrounding neighbourhood” and lacks “regard for the potential development conflict(s) to existing neighbourhoods from negative repercussions associated with the increased density”. Ironically, in another instance the Respondent sought and obtained approval, and is currently in the process of constructing two separate six-storey buildings on lands that abut a Residential Zone.

78The Tribunal finds it worthy of mention that in accord with the policy direction of the Province, the Town undertook a comprehensive and seemingly thoughtful approach to determining how and where it wants and needs to grow. It is understood that in the course of the OP review process there was generous opportunity provided for public engagement. The review exercise influenced the land use planning policy direction and directives of the OP. By-law 8600 establishes building standards and regulations to implement the policy direction of the OP.

79On the basis of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should be dismissed.

ORDER

80The Motion is granted and the appeal by Oakdale Trails Inc. is dismissed.

81The parties shall bear their own costs of the motion.

“M.A. Sills”

M.A. SILLS

VICE-CHAIR

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.