2351528 Ontario Limited v. Aurora (Town), 2022 CanLII 66998

ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT 21-001317

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

Appellant: 2351528 Ontario Limited and Aurora Leslie Developments Limited

Subject: By-law No. 6365-21

Municipality: Town of Aurora

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001317

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001317

OLT Case Name: 2351528 Ontario Limited v. Aurora (Town)

Heard: July 15, 2022 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

2351528 Ontario Limited and Aurora Leslie Developments Limited

Patricia Foran

Town of Aurora

Patricia De Sario

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is a written hearing of a joint motion by 2351528 Ontario Limited and Aurora Leslie Developments Limited (the “Appellant”), and the Town of Aurora (the “Town”). The purpose of the joint motion is to seek an approval Order by the Tribunal approving the settled amendments to Zoning By-law No. 6365-21 (“ZBL No. 6365-21”).

PLANNING EVIDENCE

2Planning evidence was provided to the Tribunal by means of the written Affidavit of Mark Yarranton. After reviewing the qualifications and signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duties the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Yarranton can give evidence as an expert in land use planning.

3Mr. Yarranton confirmed that in preparing his Affidavit to the Tribunal he reviewed the relevant legislation and policies that included the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), Growth Plan 2020 (“GP”), and the Town Official Plan (“OP”).

4The Appellant own the lands located in the Addison Hall Business Park municipally known as 15635 and 15775 Leslie Street. In a previous ZBL the Appellant was granted site specific exceptions to the Comprehensive ZBL definitions of “Landscaping/Landscape Strip” for hard and soft landscaping.

5On July 13, 2021, the Town Council approved a housekeeping ZBL No. 6365-21. The comprehensive by-law amended those general provisions for landscaping and requires certain landscaping for developments of Commercial, Employment, Institutional and Multiple Residential zoned lands. The ZBL further created a new definition for “Landscaping Strip” that does not permit hard landscaping.

6The Tribunal was informed that it was never the intentions of the Town Staff to repeal the Site-Specific exemption to the Appellants property. Mr. Yarranton indicates that the Staff and Appellant have been working together to resolve these issues and have proposed a settlement that include a “notwithstanding” provision to ZBL No. 6365-21 that would maintain the existing landscape requirements for the Appellant’s property.

7On the bases that the Tribunal approved the proposed settlement, the Comprehensive ZBL s. 4.8 (f) would read:

Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section, including subsection 4.8 a) – d), the landscaping requirements of Section 4.8 of this By-law and the definitions of Landscaping and Landscaping Strip under Section 3 of this By-law do not apply to lands that are subject to existing landscaping requirements under Section 24 of this By-law. For those lands subject to existing landscaping requirements under Section 24 of this By-law, “Landscaping / Landscape Strips” means any combination of trees shrubs flowers grass or other such vegetative elements and (which) may include decorative stonework, paving, screening, or other architectural elements, curbs, retaining walls, and any surfaced walk or similar area but does not include any driveway or ramp, parking area or any area with an enclosed building or structure.

8It was the opinion of Mr. Yarranton that the proposed settlement is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the directed intent of the GP. Mr. Yarranton states that by maintaining the Site-Specific exceptions, landscaping requirements make no impact on the permitted uses of the Appellants lands.

9Mr. Yarranton states that in his opinion the proposed settlement represents good planning. The “notwithstanding” clause to the ZBL ensures that the desired Site-Specific landscaping requirements continue to apply. The Appellant’s property continues to conform with the intent of the OP.

DISPOSITION

10Given the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Yarranton, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed settlement represents good planning. The minor change to the ZBL to include a “notwithstanding” clause that addresses what currently exists for the Site-Specific exception is appropriate. The appeals and agreed upon settlement are hereby granted.

ORDER

11The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed, and Zoning By-law No. 6365-21 is hereby amended in the manner set in Attachment “1” to this Order.

12The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this Zoning By-law for record keeping purposes.

13The Tribunal may be spoken to concerning issues arising from the implementation of this Order.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

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.

ATTACHMENT “1”

BY-LAW AMENDMENT