Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 13, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002355

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

Appellant: Brian Ross

Applicant: Harry Patrinos

Owner: St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To permit the development of a 46-unit, six-storey apartment building

Reference Number: BL 12-2022

Property Address: 1299-1331 Murphy Road (1299-1331 Murphy Road)

Municipality/UT: Sarnia/Lambton

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002355

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002355

OLT Case Name: Ross v. Sarnia (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Reference Number: OPA 35

Property Address: 1299-1331 Murphy Road

Municipality/UT: Sarnia/Lambton

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003851

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002355

Heard: August 11-12, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Brian Ross	Self-represented
Harry Patrinos	Paula Lombardi
County of Lambton	Denitza Koev

DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE AND S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a merit hearing in the matter of the appeal by Brian Ross (“Appellant”) against the approval by the County of Lambton (“County”) and the City of Sarnia (“City”) of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) proposed by Harry Patrinos (“Applicant”). These proceedings were commenced under s. 34(19) and s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and pertain to a development proposal for the property known municipally as 1299-1331 Murphy Road (“Subject Property”).

2The Applications propose the following for the Subject Property:

a. The proposed OPA, seeks to change the Official Plan land use designation from “Urban Residential” to “Apartment Residential”; and

b. The proposed ZBA, seeks to:

i. change the zoning from “Urban Residential 1 (UR1)” to a site specific “Urban Residential 5-30 (UR5-30)” zone;

ii. retain the Place of Worship and Daycare Centre uses currently on the Subject Property;

iii. allow for a site-specific parking requirement of 89 parking spaces;

iv. permit a maximum height of 19.5 metres; and,

v. reduce the minimum landscaped open space from 40% to 30%.

3As this was the first and only hearing event scheduled, the Tribunal confirmed that proper Notice was given and marked the Affidavit of Service as Exhibit 1 to the proceeding. In response to the Notice, no written requests for Party or Participant status were received and no individuals appeared at the hearing seeking status. Of note, the County advised that the City had decided not to attend the hearing but supported the Applicant’s proposal, as confirmed in the reports by the City’s Planners, which were filed as part of the evidence at the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded with the involvement and participation of the Parties identified above.

Preliminary Issue – Appellant’s Representative

4The Appellant attended the hearing advising that he was represented by Mario Fazio. Mr. Fazio, who is not a legal counsel or a licensed paralegal, was questioned with respect to the Law Society of Ontario’s By-Law Part V: “Providing Legal Services Without a License,” which requires that a representative meet the following criteria:

The person must be an individual,

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a friend or a neighbour,

iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, and

iv. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.

5While Mr. Fazio confirmed he was not receiving compensation from the Appellant, he did not meet the other parts of the test, and, in particular, is neither a friend nor a neighbour of the Appellant. As such, Mr. Fazio was not permitted to represent the Appellant.

6Following the panel’s ruling above, the Appellant requested an adjournment to find alternate representation. The County and the Applicant objected strenuously, as the matter had been fixed for a two-day hearing and they were ready to proceed. Moreover, due to funding requirements for the project, the Applicant was under time constraints. The Tribunal agreed that an adjournment would be prejudicial towards the other Parties, and especially the Applicant, in light of time constraints tied to project funding. Moreover, the Appellant’s reasoning for an adjournment request did not constitute an exceptional circumstance or an illness, as detailed in Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, but rather, had been due to the Appellant’s choice to engage an unqualified person.

7Having been denied the requested adjournment, the Appellant indicated that he wanted his neighbour, Tracy Drysdale, to be permitted to speak on his behalf. In response to further questioning from the panel, the Appellant clarified that it was not his wish for Ms. Drysdale to step into the shoes of Mr. Fazio and act as a representative but rather, for her to essentially take over the appeal on his behalf. The panel explained that, as it was Mr. Ross who had launched the appeal, and no other individuals were seeking Party status, Mr. Ross would be responsible for presenting his own case.

8In light of all the foregoing, the panel stood down for one-and-a-half hours to allow the Appellant time to prepare to present his case as a self-represented individual. On resumption of the hearing, despite the Appellant’s initial protestations and request for adjournment, he presented his appeal, made submissions, and cross-examined the opposing parties’ witnesses. Moreover, the Tribunal provided the Appellant with the option to receive assistance from Mr. Fazio in the background, if needed, throughout the hearing, so that the Appellant could fully present his case himself.

DECISION

9For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part for the sole purpose of correcting a typographical error in the ZBA, as enacted (discussed in further detail at paragraph 49 below). In all other respects, the appeal was dismissed.

REASONS

SITE AND AREA CONTEXT

10The Subject Property is 0.785 hectares or 1.94 acres and is located on the west side of Murphy Road, north of Michigan Avenue, with frontage along Murphy Road. Currently, the following are located on the Subject Property:

a. A place of worship, namely the Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church (“Church”), who is the current owner of the Subject Property;

b. A Daycare operating out of a building located next to the Church;

c. A residential dwelling; and

d. A parking area situated on the northern and western portions of the Subject Property.

11All vehicular and pedestrian access to the Subject Property is from Murphy Road, which is classified as an Arterial City Road. The east side of Murphy Road, opposite the Subject Property, is occupied by a pharmacy, a small retail plaza, and the Pathway Health Centre for Children. These lands are designated Mixed Use and Institutional respectively in the City of Sarnia’s Official Plan (“City’s OP”).

12The Subject Property backs onto homes and is situated adjacent to single family detached dwellings located to the north, south, and west. The surrounding neighbourhood is primarily developed with low density residential uses. It is in an older part of the City, and there are a variety of lot sizes, lot frontages, and lot shapes. Evidence demonstrated that the neighbourhood is well serviced by a range of public amenities including multiple city-owned public parks and existing schools. It is served by public transit and has ready access to existing water and sanitary sewage facilities.

THE PROPOSAL

13The purpose of the OPA and ZBA is to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 19.5 metre tall, 46-unit residential apartment building on the Subject Property (“Proposed Development”). The Proposed Development will provide both affordable and market rent units, with a minimum of half of the units being provided at the affordable rate. Specifically, there will be 45 dwelling units and 1 guest suite, of which 23 units will be affordable.

14All 46 units are being proposed as one-bedroom units, targeting the senior population, and specifically women over 60 years of age, as they have been deemed by the County to be two vulnerable sectors of the population in need of housing options. The Proposed Development will utilize the existing municipal services being the sanitary sewer, storm water and water supply available in the area.

15The Church and the Daycare will remain on the Subject Property once the Proposed Development comes to fruition. The residential dwelling will be demolished and that part of the Subject Property will become the parking lot for the 6-story residential building.

16The Applicant is the President of the Sarnia Hellenic Community. In pursuing the Proposed Development, the goal of the Church was to provide affordable housing. For this purpose, the Church, a non-profit charity, sought funding through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (“CMHC”) Co-Investment Fund (“Co-Investment Fund”). The Co-Investment Fund sets out minimum eligibility requirements, including affordability (defined as rent for at least 30% of the units being less than 80% of the Median Market Rent and maintained for a minimum of 20 years), to finance the Proposed Development.

17In order to qualify for the Co-Investment Fund program, the Church had to meet 27 program requirements, one of which is having a property with the appropriate zoning to facilitate the development of the affordable housing project. This resulted in the Church submitting the OPA and the ZBA in support of the Proposed Development (collectively referred to as the “Applications”).

THE HEARING

18At the hearing, the Appellant raised concerns with respect to the Proposed Development in terms of height and compatibility; asserted that it will result in overdevelopment on an undersized lot; and argued that the reduction of parking spaces sought would be insufficient to support the intended uses of the site. Finally, he asserted, with reference to other affordable housing developments (approved or under construction) in the area, that there was no need for the Proposed Development.

19In support of his position, he did not call any witnesses. Rather, he offered his own opinions which differed from the conclusions in the supporting planning report and technical studies underpinning the decisions of the City and County. He did not offer any competing studies or objective evidence/analysis to demonstrate that the studies relied upon by the approval authorities were somehow flawed, such that they should be rejected, and he confirmed, on cross-examination, that he was not a land use planner or engineer and had not consulted a land use planner or any other experts throughout this process. Moreover, he confirmed on cross examination that he was not familiar with ‘affordable housing’ as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”).

20The Applicant and the County were aligned in the position that the appeal should be dismissed. The County called Kenneth Melanson, a registered professional planner and the current Manager of Planning and Development for the County, whom the Tribunal qualified without objection to provide expert land use planning evidence with respect to the proposed OPA. He provided a detailed land use planning rationale to support the proposed OPA and reviewed the County of Lambton’s Official Plan (“County’s OP”) and the City’s OP in detail.

21The Applicant called the following witnesses:

a. Michael Hannay, a registered professional planner, also qualified by the Tribunal without objection, to provide expert evidence in land use planning, who provided a detailed planning rationale in support of the proposed OPA and proposed ZBA; and

b. Brian Mundt, project manager for the Proposed Development, who has been involved from the start of the project. He provided detailed lay-witness testimony regarding affordable housing projects in general, as well as the funding application for this particular project and the specific funding criteria which drove the current design of the Proposed Development.

Affordable Housing Evidence

22The Appellant explained that he did not take issue with the Proposed Development insofar as the affordable housing project was concerned, but that his main issue was the 6-storey height proposed. He explained that, had the proposal been for a 4-storey building or shorter, he would not have brought forth this appeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he strenuously argued, with reference to other developments in the area which he understood to be affordable housing, that there is no need for this particular affordable housing proposal.

23Mr. Mundt, the project manager for the Proposed Development, provided an extensive and informative testimony regarding the height of the project and exactly why a 6-storey building had been deemed appropriate. In addition, he addressed the need for affordable housing in the area and how the Proposed Development would aid in the achievement of the goals of the City and the County to alleviate same.

24He explained that the goal at all times was that the Proposed Development be designed in an efficient and compact manner that aligns with the City’s OP, the County’s OP, and the PPS as they apply to the Subject Property, while meeting the relevant requirements to qualify for funding through the CMHC Co-Investment Fund.

25Mr. Mundt noted that the demolition of the existing Church was not considered to be a viable option which represented a constraint in terms of siting the Proposed Development. While approximately 9 building placements were considered, ultimately, the options for the siting of the six-storey building came down to two main locations: (a) north side of the Subject Property (farthest location from the Appellant’s home); and (b) west side of the Subject Property (closest location to the Appellant’s home). The use of the westerly portion of the Subject Property for the Proposed Development presented more challenges and constraints than what was considered feasible. The siting of the Proposed Development on the northerly portion of the Subject Property was considered the most feasible and the preferred option by the design team.

26With respect to the height of the building, Mr. Mundt testified that, in order to provide affordable residential housing, the project must be financially feasible. To achieve that goal, a minimum of 40 apartment units must be provided. Mr. Mundt testified that, while this is generally considered a relatively low number of units to allow for financial feasibility, it was deemed appropriate in this case given that the Church has access to funding; the Church owns the Subject Property, so no land costs are being incurred; there is a compact building design; and the charitable status of the Church provides access to certain tax rebates and exceptions.

27While the construction of a higher building was initially considered to achieve the recommended number of units to ensure financial feasibility, the design team, and the professional planners on the team in particular, advised that a high-rise building (i.e. greater than 6 storeys) situated immediately adjacent to a low rise neighbourhood, without sufficient spatial separation to the surrounding low rise residential neighbourhood, would not be considered appropriate or good land use planning.

28Thus, a mid-rise building of 4 to 6 storeys was analyzed. As Mr. Mundt explained, less than 4-storeys could not accommodate the recommended unit count for a feasible development. Storey heights of 4 and 5 affected the site characteristics to a greater degree than the Proposed Development, as the width of the building would have to be longer to accommodate the recommended unit count, and would therefore cover more of the landscape. The proposed 6-storey building was considered the optimal height and width for the Subject Property and considered feasible by the design team.

29Mr. Mundt also addressed the Appellant’s concern with respect to the reduction in parking spaces. The Appellant testified at length about parking and his belief that 89 spaces do not address the needs of a 46-unit building in addition to the Church and Daycare. Mr. Mundt noted that the Church and Daycare’s parking needs do not overlap as a result of their typical operating days/hours. He further explained that the proposal seeks a reduction in parking from 1.5 spots per unit to 1 spot per unit. Considering the target market for the building (senior citizens and women over 60 years of age), 1 parking spot per unit was considered adequate. Lastly, he explained that, if the building was 4 or 5 storeys, it would take up more of the landscape and would result in less availability for parking spots.

30Finally, with respect to the Appellant’s assertion that there is no need for this affordable housing project, Mr. Mundt testified that only a small number of the other area developments referenced by the Appellant actually meet the definition of ‘affordable housing’ in the PPS and the few which do are insufficient to alleviate the need for same, as reported annually by the County.

Land Use Planning Evidence

31Messrs. Melanson and Hannay provided expert land use planning opinion evidence and were aligned in their analyses, ultimately concluding that the OPA, the ZBA, and the Proposed Development satisfy all legislative tests under the Planning Act, as they have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2; are consistent with the PPS; conform with the County’s OP and the City’s OP, and overall, constitute good planning. Both planners wholly adopted the analysis and conclusions of the City’s planners, as outlined in the staff reports dated October 25, 2021 and January 17, 2022, which recommended approval of the Proposed Development.

32During the course of their testimony, both experts addressed concerns raised by the Appellant, including but not limited to: the proposed height of the building, the appropriateness of the Proposed Development for the neighbourhood, and the adequacy of the proposed parking for the intended uses of the site.

The Planning Act and the PPS

33In the opinion of the planning witnesses, the Proposed Development has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with PPS policies including, but not limited to, those which speak to:

• providing affordable and accessible housing opportunities to meet the needs of current and future residents of the City of Sarnia and, more specifically, an identified vulnerable demographic (in this instance, seniors and women over 60);

• efficient use of land, compact residential growth and built form that minimizes land consumption and utilizes existing municipal services to achieve cost effective development patterns; and

• providing development which is sustainable, transit-supportive and pedestrian oriented, by virtue of the Subject Property being situated in close proximity to a designated commercial hub which is readily accessible by public transit and has direct access to area parks and other community resources.

County of Lambton Official Plan

34Mr. Melanson noted that the proposed OPA seeks to change the designation of the Subject Property from Urban Residential to Apartment Residential. He testified extensively regarding the County’s OP policies and opined that the proposed development achieves conformity therewith. In particular, he noted policies 2.1.4, 2.3.4, 2.3.12, 2.1.5, and 2.4.6 and described the ways in which the Proposed Development aligns with same through the provision of a well-designed building, development of a mix of affordable and market-based residential units, integration of affordable housing within the existing community, and creation of affordable housing through a non-profit group such as the Church. He explained that the Growth Strategy for the County, as set out in s. 3.2 of the County’s OP, directs growth to the Urban Centres, such as the area where the Subject Property is located.

35Contrary to the Appellant’s concern that the proposed development would result in overdevelopment of an undersized property, both planners opined that the level of intensification proposed for the Subject Property is appropriate, as it is currently underutilized based on its scale, location and access to infrastructure such as transit. Mr. Melanson drew the panel’s attention to County OP policy 2.3.10, which encourages local municipalities to provide opportunities for the intensification of housing and sets out a variety of techniques to do so, including redeveloping sites not previously used or underutilized for residential purposes and opined that the Proposed Development is in direct alignment with same.

36Mr. Melanson also addressed the issue of affordable housing, including the Appellant’s assertion that there is no need for this affordable housing development. He testified that he had communicated with the County’s social housing department and confirmed the evidence given by Mr. Mundt, namely that there is a significant deficit of affordable housing throughout the City and County. He opined that the Proposed Development will assist somewhat in moving towards both City and County targets for the provision of affordable housing units.

37He provided a thorough review of the County OP policies on affordable housing, and in particular highlighted s. 2.4.8 which speaks to integrating affordable housing within the existing community fabric. The intent of this policy is to ensure affordable housing units are not segregated to certain areas but rather, dispersed throughout the County so as to allow anyone to be able to live anywhere. He opined that the Proposed Development aligns with both the letter and spirit of not only s. 2.4.8 but the balance of the County’s affordable housing policies in general.

38Mr. Hannay agreed with and adopted the expert opinion of Mr. Melanson, adding that the Proposed Development minimizes disruption to the existing residential uses, is in conformity with s. 2.1.5, and is well designed, encourages a sense of place, provides public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant, and its location within a “node” provides access to parks, shopping, and transit, aligning with s. 2.1.4 and 2.4.9. Lastly, he drew the panel’s attention to s. 2.4.6, which encourages the creation of affordable housing through the provision of community-based private non-profit and co-operative groups, which is particularly applicable in this instance, as the Church is a non-profit charitable organization.

City of Sarnia Official Plan

39With regard to the City’s OP, the evidence of both planners was that the Proposed Development and planning instruments conform to the six principles for a vibrant City as set out therein. The classification of the Subject Property as “Stable Residential Area,” serviced by the “Commercial Hub,” is indicative of the City’s broader vision and intent for the neighbourhood. Both designations promote the development of complete and compact communities within the City. Moreover, the affordable housing project contributes to the City’s Community Development goals and policies by establishing a well-designed and thoughtfully sited residential building offering a diversified housing typology with access to a variety of resources and services, including parks, schools, and commercial uses on the east side of Murphy Road. Given the foregoing, the planners opined that the Proposed Development aligns with the City’s OP policies and intentions relating to “City Structure”, “Land Use”, and “Community Development.”

40The Proposed Development, which seeks to situate transit ridership along an Arterial Road (Murphy Road) and to appropriately intensify a Stable Residential area (in which the OP encourages urban growth) will ensure efficient use of infrastructure and public transportation in conformity with s. 3.3 of the City’s OP. Moreover, as explained by Mr. Hannay, the Proposed Development will be energy efficient through the utilization of low flow plumbing fixtures, an enhanced building envelope, energy-efficient HVAC and Energy Star appliances.

41The panel heard evidence that the Proposed Development conforms with the Land Use Policies in Chapter 4 of the City’s OP, which directs growth to appropriate designations in urban areas and importantly, supports reinvestment and regeneration into existing communities. Mr. Melanson explained that, over the long-term, stable residential areas will remain stable but not static. This policy framework supports renewal of all neighbourhoods, especially mature ones such as this, and encourages infill and redevelopment. Mr. Hannay explained that the Proposed Development is appropriately situated along the street edge, will have minimal shadow and overlook impacts on the adjacent lower scale neighbourhood and, as such, conforms to the policies of the City’s OP. In light of the foregoing, the planners opined that the Subject Property is a logical and appropriate location for the Proposed Development.

42In order to ensure that any plan for intensification is appropriate, the City’s OP sets out specific development criteria applicable to different land use designations. Section 4.4.2 sets out development criteria for the Urban Residential Designation and s. 4.4.4(2) sets out different development criteria for the Apartment Residential designation.

43The Appellant asserted that the Proposed Development, when evaluated against the criteria applicable to the Subject Property’s current Urban Residential designation, does not conform to the City’s OP. However, the planners explained that the proposal, which seeks to change the designation of the Subject Property from Urban Residential to Apartment Residential, must be evaluated against the development criteria applicable to the proposed designation (Apartment Residential) in order to assess and determine whether it conforms to the new designation it will fall under. In other words, contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, the Proposed Development need not conform with the criteria listed under the Urban Residential designation, but must conform with those listed under the Apartment Residential designation. They reviewed the criteria within the Apartment Residential designation in detail, explaining the ways in which the Proposed Development appropriately meets those criteria and as such, achieves the goals of protecting and minimizing disruption to existing residential uses.

44Both of the experts indicated that the Proposed Development aligns with the community development goals and intent as set out in s. 5 of the City’s OP, which states “a healthy and livable City that consistently attracts and retains population depends on policies and strategies that build strong, vibrant communities where citizens are valued, resources are managed responsibly and prosperity is broadly shared.” Mr. Melanson drew attention to s. 5.10 and particularly the affordable housing component, stating that the Proposed Development conforms with this policy. It was the opinion of Messrs. Melanson and Hannay that the inclusion of the six-storey affordable housing apartment building ensures that the residents of the City have access to housing with barrier-free access to services and resources.

Zoning By-Law Amendment to Zoning By-Law 85 of 2002

45Both experts confirmed that the location of the Subject Property is situated in such a manner as to provide a great degree of access to existing transit and other community resources, including: the existing Church on the Subject Property; the designated “Commercial Hub” situated to the southeast of the Subject Property which provides shopping opportunities; two public parks and three academic institutions located within a 10 minute walk; as well as a nursing home and two churches located to the southeast and north of the Subject Property.

46With respect to potential impacts on adjacent development, Mr. Hannay referenced the following studies which support the proposed OPA and ZBA:

a. The Traffic Impact Study which confirms that there will be no significant impact on the traffic flow of Murphy Road and that the proposed 89 parking spaces on the Subject Property will be sufficient to meet the needs of the church, the Daycare centre, and the Proposed Development;

b. Site Servicing Feasibility Study which confirms the availability of municipal watermain, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers available to service the Proposed Development; and

c. Shadow Study which demonstrates that the shadow of the proposed six-storey building would be limited to primarily the adjacent properties to the north and west of the Subject Property with the least impact occurring around the summer solstice. Of note, it would have no impact on the Appellant’s property, which is located on the opposite side of the Proposed Development.

47The planners opined that, despite the requested decrease in landscaped open space area from 40% to 30%, there will continue to be sufficient space to allow for passive recreational uses by residents as well as the existing Church and Daycare.

48With respect to the issue of height specifically, the planners confirmed that the scale, built form and proposed level of intensification is appropriate for the area. Through a visual demonstration to the panel using the County’s GIS (Geographic Information System), Mr. Melanson confirmed that, contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, there are numerous buildings within a 12-kilometre (“km”) radius from the Appellant’s property that exceed 3 storeys, some that exceed 6 storeys, and he specifically identified a high-rise building in excess of 10 storeys located within 2 to 2.4 km of the Appellant’s property.

49Mr. Hannay drew the Tribunal’s attention to a typographical error that had previously been overlooked in the ZBA, as approved, which incorrectly expressed the maximum permitted height in terms of a percentage (19%), rather than the intended 19.5 metres (emphasis added), as detailed in the Planning Rationale Report at page 449 of Exhibit 2 as well as the Open Session (planning staff) Report at page 619 of Exhibit 2. It was noted that, should the Tribunal dismiss the appeal, it would be appropriate to make an Order directing the municipality to correct the error, so as to accurately reflect the intended maximum permitted height of 19.5 metres.

50To accommodate the Proposed Development, the Applicant seeks a reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces from 152 to 89. Contrary to the assertion of the Appellant that this would result in insufficient parking to support all the intended uses of the site, the uncontradicted opinion of the experts is that 89 spaces is appropriate for the development, which is confirmed by a Traffic Study (discussed above).

51Overall, both expert witnesses at the hearing summarized that the Proposed Development 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 no environmental or public health concerns were identified. They testified that the Proposed Development represented good land use planning.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

52No compelling evidence, planning or otherwise, was heard which would support a decision to allow the appeals and, notwithstanding the various concerns and apprehensions expressed by the Appellant, the totality of the evidence proffered by the County and the Applicant in support of the Proposed Development stood uncontroverted and unchallenged in any cogent manner. In light of the foregoing, as well as the Appellant’s various admissions on cross examination (discussed at paragraph 19 above), the Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should give little to no weight to the written or verbal testimony of the Appellant and relied on the case of Sadkowski v Mississauga (City), 2022 CanLII 32466 (ON LT) (at paragraph 19), wherein the Tribunal confirmed that, as the self-represented Applicant/Appellant was not an expert in that case, his opinion could not “be given much weight.” The Tribunal agrees and prefers the thorough and persuasive land use planning opinions of Messrs. Melanson and Hannay, as well as the lay witness testimony provided by Mr. Mundt in respect of the funding-driven design and feasibility considerations underpinning the design concept ultimately chosen for the Proposed Development.

53On the issue of intensification within existing neighbourhoods, the Tribunal was presented with the following authorities, which were considered to be of assistance. In River Park Village Corp. v. Cambridge (City), 2022 CanLII 32471 (ON LT), a similar proposal with similar characteristics was approved and the Tribunal found, at paragraph 100, that “Intensification and change in existing neighbourhoods are an ongoing challenge but that such evolution is a provincial direction.” In Jindal Developments Ltd. V. Brampton (City), 2022 CanLII 23458 (ON LT), at paragraph 71, the Tribunal notes “neighbourhoods are not intended to be static, meaning there will be no change…current planning thought is that modest or ‘gentle’ intensification is appropriate in existing neighbourhoods.”

54The Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA and the Proposed Development they will permit satisfy all legislative tests and warrant approval. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is appropriate transition from the existing residential area to the west and is additionally satisfied that the Proposed Development will not result in overdevelopment but rather, is an appropriate use of underutilized land to reinvest in a stable neighbourhood, furthering the goals of the provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities (including affordable housing) in an area that is supported by public transit.

55Finally, the Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Hannay in relation to the administrative/typographical error which results in the need for an amendment to the maximum permitted height in the ZBA, as enacted, and accordingly will allow the appeal in part for the sole purpose of correcting same.

56In making these findings, the panel gave regard to the decisions of the County and the City to approve the OPA and ZBA, as well as the information considered by those approval authorities in the course of making their decisions.

ORDER

57THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against Amendment No. 35 to the Official Plan for the City of Sarnia is dismissed and Amendment No. 35 is approved.

58THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the appeal against By-law No. 12 of 2022 of the City of Sarnia is allowed, in part, and the Tribunal directs the municipality to amend paragraph 2(7) as follows: “Height (max) 19.5 m.” In all other respects, the Tribunal Orders the appeal is dismissed.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE MEMBER

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN 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.