Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003339 (Formerly) PL171402
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 1754260 Ontario Limited
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of Town of Aurora to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Community Commercial
Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit the development of two (2) 6-storey apartment buildings
Property Address: 15036 and 15286 Leslie Street
Municipality: Town of Aurora
Approval Authority File No.: OPA-2016-03
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003339
Legacy Case No.: PL171402
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003339
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171402
OLT Case Name: 1754260 Ontario Limited v. Aurora (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1754260 Ontario Limited
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. (2213-78) - Refusal or neglect of Town of Aurora to make a decision
Existing Zoning: RU (Rural) Zone
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit the development of two (2) 6-storey apartment buildings
Property Address/Description: 15036 and 15286 Leslie Street
Municipality: Town of Aurora
Municipality File No.: ZBA-2016-07
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003342
Legacy Case No.: PL171403
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003339
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171402
Heard: August 10, 2022 in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
RP Partners Aurora Limited (“Appellant”)
Barry Horosko
Town of Aurora (“Town”)
Patricia De Sario
DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by the Appellant pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the Town of Aurora’s (the “Town”) failure to make a decision on the applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment required to facilitate the development of two six-storey apartment buildings at 15036 and 15286 Leslie Street (the “Subject Site”/ “Subject Lands”).
2At an earlier Case Management Conference held on March 19, 2019, the Parties indicated that ongoing discussions for an affordable housing component of the Subject Site was being explored with the possibility of having the Regional Municipality of York (the “Region”) assume management of the component.
3The Tribunal received email correspondence dated July 20, 2022, indicating that the Parties have reached a settlement on this appeal and jointly requested a Priority Settlement Hearing. As the proposed settlement includes a Section 37 Community Benefit Charges, the Parties requested that the Hearing be scheduled prior to September 18, 2022.
4The Tribunal received duly executed Minutes of Settlement, the Affidavit of David McKay with planning evidence to support the settlement and the proposed planning instruments to be approved, being the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment that were agreed upon by both the Town and the Appellant.
5Mr. McKay is a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners with 24 years of experience in his field. He is a Partner and Vice President of MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited and has been a planning consultant with the same firm since 1997. The Tribunal qualified Mr. McKay as an expert in land use planning.
6The Parties also confirmed that the Participants, namely Eric Liversidge and the Salvation Army Canada, as well as any other individuals on the notice list, are in support of the settlement and do not intend to participate in the Hearing.
AREA CONTEXT
7The Subject Lands are located north of Wellington Street and west of Leslie Street, municipally known as 15286 and 15306 Leslie Street. They are approximately 1.8 hectares in area and have a frontage of 114.5 metres on Leslie Street. The Site is currently vacant with mature vegetation. The two residential dwellings previously located on the Subject Site were demolished with permits from the Town.
8Uses adjacent to the Subject Lands are as follows:
North: Institutional use (Salvation Army);
South: Service Commercial use (Esso Gas Station); Future Commercial Uses (to the west of the Esso Gas Station); Residential uses (to the southwest);
East: Leslie Street; Stormwater Management Facility; and Regional Commercial Centre uses; and
West: Institutional use (Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex).
9The Subject Lands are designated as “Community Commercial” in the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”), defined by the Bayview Northeast Area 2B Secondary Plan. They are zoned as “Rural (RU) Zone” in the Town’s Zoning By-Law.
THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
10In his written Affidavit, Mr. McKay provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive chronological overview with respect to the evolution of this proposed development.
11Mr. McKay stated that, as noted in the February 3, 2020 Decision of the Tribunal, since the filing of the appeals, the Appellant and the Town continued discussions and arrived at a Settlement, as endorsed by Town Council. This resulted in a revised proposal, which includes the following key elements:
The proposal has been revised from 2 to 3 buildings; the buildings have been increased in height from 6 to 7 storeys. This results in a decrease in lot coverage from 36.89% to 23%, resulting in significantly more landscaped open space being provided.
The unit count has increased to 345 units.
A Section 37 contribution is being made to the Town to facilitate affordable housing units within Building 1 (115 units) and / or other Town priorities.
Parking has been increased from 375 parking spaces being provided to 432 parking spaces being provided.
12In his written Affidavit, Mr. McKay also provided the Tribunal with an overview of the proposed site plans, drawings, and the site plan conditions.
POLICY CONTEXT
13Mr. McKay provided the Tribunal with a thorough and comprehensive overview of the current policy context, namely the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“2020 PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) (“2019 Growth Plan”), the Region of York Official Plan (“YROP”), the Town’s OP and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (“LSPP”).
14In summary, Mr. McKay concluded that the proposed settlement is consistent with the 2020 PPS, conforms to the 2019 Growth Plan, conforms to the YROP, conforms to the Town’s OP, conforms to the LSPP, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
1. Provincial Policy Statement (2020)
15Mr. McKay stated that the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant PPS policies for the following reasons:
The proposed amendments will allow for new residential uses including affordable housing to be developed on lands designated for urban uses with an appropriate level of intensification, supported by appropriate transportation and municipal infrastructure.
The proposed amendments will permit the efficient utilization of the Subject Lands.
The proposed development will efficiently utilize and optimize existing infrastructure including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, public streets and public transit.
The proposed amendments will ensure that the Subject Lands are developed in a manner which is compatible with existing and future land uses.
The proposed development will offer a variety of housing sizes to residents of all ages, and integrate design considerations related to accessibility. Further, a contribution towards affordable housing being developed on the Subject Lands is being made, thus supporting the housing policies of the PPS.
The proposed development incorporates low impact development and other sustainable measures, transportation demand management measures, which are intended to make the proposed development become resilient and adaptive to climate change.
2. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019)
16In his written Affidavit, Mr. McKay pointed out that the proposed amendments conform to the relevant Growth Plan policies for the following reasons:
The proposed development will provide for an appropriate built-form within the urban area to contribute to creating a complete community. The proposed compact built form is transit supportive and represents an efficient and improved utilization of land.
The proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses through the use of appropriate performance standards to control the built form and building siting.
The proposed development will permit the development of 345 new residential units including a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing units on the Subject Lands, thus supporting the housing policies of the Growth Plan.
The proposed development will permit a development which will allow for the efficient use of the Subject Lands and optimize available infrastructure including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, public streets and public transit.
The proposed development will incorporate low impact development measures, transportation demand management measures and other green infrastructure matters which are intended to make the proposed development more resilient and adaptive to a changing climate.
The proposed development will incorporate green design measures such as passive and active energy conservation measures to minimize the development’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
17Mr. McKay explained that the Subject Lands are located within the watershed boundary that is regulated under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. The LSPP outlines policy themes such as water quality, water quantity, and natural heritage and details the associated targets, indicators and policies to address potential impacts and assist with implementation. The LSPP identifies several Designated Policies pertaining to decisions made under the Planning Act and Condominium Act. There are several Designated Policy requirements that are applicable to development applications including the requirement for a stormwater management plan. Section 4 of the LSPP outlines policies for clean water and steps that are to be taken to minimize the impacts that humans create on the watershed.
18He stated that, in support of the proposal, several reports have been prepared to address LSPP matters, including a Functional Servicing Design Brief, Stormwater Management Report and a Hydrogeological Assessment. These reports address in detail that stormwater management for the proposed development will be designed in accordance with the Town, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, along with specific policies within the LSPP. These implementation measures will continue to be refined through the Site Plan Approval process and implemented accordingly through construction.
4. Region of York Official Plan
19Mr. McKay opined that the proposed development conforms to and does not conflict with the relevant YROP policies for the following reasons:
The proposed amendments will facilitate the efficient use of the Subject Lands by permitting an appropriate level of development which is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The proposed amendments will provide for residential uses, including affordable housing units on underutilized lands, thus supporting the housing intensification objectives set forth by the YROP.
The proposed development will contribute to a diversity of housing options assisting with making Aurora a more complete community.
The proposed development will permit a development which will allow for the efficient use of the Subject Lands and optimize available infrastructure including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, public streets and public transit.
The proposed mixed use development as permitted by the proposed amendments will incorporate low impact development measures, transportation demand management measures and other sustainable measures to assist the Region and the Town to become resilient to climate change.
The proposed development will incorporate green design measures such as passive and active energy conservation measures to minimize the development’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
5. Town of Aurora Official Plan
20In his written Affidavit, Mr. McKay stated that the proposal appropriately addresses the relevant Town OP policies as follows:
The proposed amendments would permit a medium-high density residential designation adjacent to Leslie Street and in proximity to a major road (Wellington Street East), where these designations are intended to locate. Further, the Subject Lands are in proximity to commercial, recreational and community services, thus supporting these uses. Lastly, the Subject Lands are in proximity to York Region Transit (“YRT”) services along both Leslie Street and Wellington Street East (YRT Route 33). The proposed amendments therefore conform to the locational criteria for medium-high density residential designations.
The proposed amendments would contribute to the housing supply and mix within the Town, including a contribution to the provision of affordable housing units.
The proposed height, at 7 storeys, is permitted along Wellington Street East. Given the proximity of the Subject Lands to Wellington Street, it is not unreasonable to provide for similar heights on the Subject Lands. Further, the proposed height when combined with the building siting does not create any undue impacts related to shadowing or privacy, which arise to that of a planning nature, in his opinion.
While the density proposed exceeds that set out in the Town OP for medium-high density residential designations, these policies were established in 2000, well before the PPS and the Growth Plan emphasized intensification to the extent they do now. The proposed density which the amendments would permit are appropriate, given this increased emphasis at a provincial level on intensification.
The proposal preserves a deciduous woodlot at the southwest corner of the property along with a drainage ditch along the western property line in accordance with the environmental policies of the Town OP.
The proposed density efficiently utilizes the lands and optimizes public infrastructure.
6. Participant Concerns
21There are two participants involved with the appeal: Mr. Liversidge, who provided comments at both public meetings and the Salvation Army, represented by Major Brian Bishop. Both Participants represent properties which are immediately adjacent to the subject site.
22A distillation of the concerns raised are as follows:
Concern regarding the interface between the Salvation Army property and the Subject Site with respect to sight lines and access.
Concern regarding how drainage will work on the property.
Concerns regarding shadow impacts and overlook issues.
Concerns regarding on-site parking provisions and the potential for parking infiltration onto Salvation Army property.
Concern regarding vehicular and pedestrian access.
Concern regarding the preservation of the wooded area at the southwest corner of the Subject Site and tree preservation in general.
Concern regarding the proposed density.
Concern about the proximity of the proposed development to Mr. Liversidge’s well.
23Mr. McKay, in his written Affidavit, provided the Tribunal with responses and mitigation measures to be undertaken by the Appellant, which will resolve all of the above concerns raised by the two Participants.
24As noted earlier, the Participants have indicated their support for the proposed settlement.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
25Based on the written Affidavit, with uncontested planning evidence, provided by Mr. McKay to support the proposed settlement, the acceptance of the settlement proposal by Town Council and the consent of the Participants to the proceedings, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, conforms to and does not conflict with the YROP, conforms to the Town OP, conforms to the LSPP, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
26The Tribunal Orders that the proposed settlement is approved in principle.
27The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed, and the Official Plan Amendment is approved in the form attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision.
28The Tribunal Orders that the Zoning By-Law Amendment is approved, and By-Law No. 6000-17 as amended, is hereby further amended, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 2.
“T. Prevedel”
T. Prevedel
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
OLT-22-003339 – Schedule 1
OLT-22-003339 – Schedule 2