Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 7, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001735
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Ken Boucher
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2011-7100 - Refusal or neglect of Township City of Timmins to make a decision
Municipality: City of Timmins
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001735
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001735
OLT Case Name: Boucher v. City of Timmins (Corp)
Heard: May 26-27, 2022 by video hearing (“VH” / “Hearing”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Ken Boucher (“Appellant”)
Self-Represented
2611421 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)
Self-Represented, Pete Beaucage
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
background
1This Hearing was conducted by video conference on May 26-27, 2022 regarding the appeal by Ken Boucher (“Appellant”) of a decision made by Council of the City of Timmins (“City”) to approve Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2021-8616 (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act. (“Act”). The ZBA was enacted and passed on October 12, 2021 by the City.
2The ZBA permitted the City property known municipally as 185 Crawford Street (“Subject Property”) to be rezoned from Residential Second Density (NA-R2) (“Original Zoning”) to Residential Medium Density (NA-RM2) SP6 (“New Zoning”) in order to facilitate the construction of two apartment buildings with a total of 6 units on the Subject Property (“Development”). The ZBA also permitted a reduction of both north and south interior side yards of the Subject Property from 4.97 m to 3.0 m and a reduction in the minimum width for a two-way entrance or exist from 7.0 m to 6.29 m.
3The Appellant Mr. Boucher was self-represented and the Applicant corporation, was also self represented by its director, Pete Beaucage. At the outset of the Hearing, it was confirmed that the City would not formally appear at the VH. However, as described below, a City employee did attend under summons to provide planning evidence to the Tribunal.
4Cindy Welsh, a City Staff Planner, provided opinion evidence at the VH. Ms. Welsh’s Witness Statement dated May 25, 2022 was tendered as an exhibit at the Hearing with the consent of Mr. Boucher. Ms. Welsh at all material times had carriage of the Applicant’s submission to the City concerning the Development and is a registered professional planner in Ontario. She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, without objection from Mr. Boucher.
5Mr. Boucher did not tender any expert opinion evidence at the VH and was unable during cross-examination to successfully challenge the opinions and conclusions of Ms. Welsh in support of the approval of the ZBA, which were accepted and relied upon by the Tribunal. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal.
6The Appellant raised concerns regarding infrastructure, preservation of trees and belief that the proposed development represented over-development for the residential area. In addition, the Appellant included in his submissions a petition opposing the Application, allegedly signed by 88 individuals residing in the surrounding neighbourhood. None of those individuals attended the VH and none sought Participant Status in this proceeding.
7Ms. Welsh testified that the Subject Property is a rectangular shaped lot with a frontage of 24.38 m, a depth of 63.63 m with a total area of 1,551.55 square metres. The Subject Property fronts onto a maintained municipal road. Properties located in all directions surrounding the Subject Property are zoned pursuant to the Original Zoning.
ANALYSIS
8Ms. Welsh provided testimony that the Application has proper regard to s. 2 of the Act regarding matters of provincial interest. Specifically, the Application allows for the development of safe and healthy communities, adds to the provision of a full range of housing and is located in an appropriate location of growth and development.
9Ms. Welsh’s uncontested expert opinion was that the Application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). It provides for healthy, liveable and safe communities. In addition, the Application allows for development that takes advantage of existing infrastructure and promotes intensification, redevelopment and compact form.
10The Application is subject to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario 2011 (“Growth Plan”), which guides decision making to promote economic prosperity and strong sustainable communities.
11Under the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) the Subject Property is identified as Neighbourhood Area, which pursuant to s. 3.1.1 of the OP is intended to contain uses of all types of residential development. The OP also states that Neighbourhood Areas are encouraged to contain diverse housing and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents provided that sufficient existing or planned infrastructure is available.
12Ms. Welsh opined that the ZBA is appropriate, represents good planning and is in conformity with both the OP and the Growth Plan.
APPELLANT ISSUES
13Ms. Welsh also responded to the issues raised by the Appellant.
14The Appellant raised matters regarding infrastructure including storm water management and infrastructure. Ms. Welsh pointed out that storm water management will be properly dealt with as part of a site plan control. In addition, Ms. Welsh noted that the City Engineering Department did not communicate any such concerns, but in fact stated in a report to City Council on November 9, 2021 that the Subject Property’s surrounding area contained sufficient sewer capacity for the Development.
15The Appellant had also raised concerns regarding the effect of the Development on the community character. The permitted uses under the Original Zoning include a diverse mix of housing options including apartment, duplex and semi-detached dwellings. Mr. Boucher suggested in his lay evidence and oral submissions that the Application would lead to the neighbourhood being converted into a commercial neighbourhood, which, in light of Ms. Welsh’s evidence, is not the case since Development is purely residential.
16Mr. Boucher raised complaints regarding the impact of the Development due to intensification, including parking, maintenance of the property, refuse, traffic, safety due to nearby schools, height and destruction of trees. In her witness statement and oral testimony, Ms. Welsh demonstrated that the Application complied with all City zoning requirements for parking and trees. Issues regarding maintenance, refuse and traffic must be dealt with through site plan control. There were no safety issues raised by any of the City’s four area school boards.
Summary and Conclusion
17Based on the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Welsh, and in the absence of any expert evidence from the Appellant, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the policies and directives of the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan and the OP.
ORDER
18The Tribunal Orders that this appeal is hereby dismissed.
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
MEMBER
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
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.