Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002870
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Arnprior OVD Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – refusal of application
Description: Seeking the amendment to permit the development of three four-storey apartment buildings with 144 units total
Reference Number: ZBA-4/21
Property Address: Part Lot 3, Concession B
Municipality/UT: Arnprior/Renfrew
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002870
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002870
OLT Case Name: Arnprior OVD Inc. v. Arnprior (Town)
Heard: September 1, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Arnprior OVD Inc.
Gregory Meeds
Town of Arnprior
Laura Robinson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON september 1, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Tribunal convened a Settlement Hearing (“hearing”) for the above noted matter. Arnprior OVD Inc.(“Applicant”) has filed appeals against the Town of Arnprior (“Town”) for its refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The legal description of the subject lands is Part of Lot 3, Concession B, former Township of McNabb, now in the Town of Arnprior, Lot 97 and 98, Plan 115 (“subject property”).
2The two Parties are represented at this hearing as noted above. There are no additional requests for party or participant status at this proceeding.
3The Affidavit of Service sworn on August 2, 2022, is marked as Exhibit 1.
4The Tribunal is presented with a Minutes of Settlement which further defines and clarifies the basis for settlement between the Applicant and the Town of Arnprior, which is marked as Exhibit 2. The content of the Minutes of Settlement deals with a number of issues including:
a. the Parties have agreed to resolve the Appeal and support the approval of the Tribunal of the ZBA, in the form found at Schedule 1 to these Minutes; and,
b. the Parties have agreed that each shall bear its own costs of the Appeal.
5Testimony is heard from one planning witness, Forbes Symon. He is qualified to give expert evidence in the discipline of land use planning. With respect to this matter, he has considerable planning experience within the subject area and the Town.
BACKGROUND, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AREA ANALYSIS
6The subject property is located at the corner of Thomas Street South and William Street and is currently vacant. Historically, the subject property was used for industrial purposes and these industrial structures were demolished in the early 1990s. The subject property is considered a brownfield site which is currently in the process of being assessed and remediated. Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments have been completed and have recommended that a soil remediation program be carried out to support the filing of a Record of Site Condition. The Record of Site Condition will be the subject of Site Plan Approval.
7The subject property is approximately 1.86 hectares (“ha”) in size. Surrounding land uses are: Southeast - the Madawaska River; East - the former CP railway corridor, currently the Algonquin Trail; North - residential neighborhoods consisting mainly of single detached dwellings; and West - is the Town’s Water Filtration Plant, garage and Nick Smith Centre.
8The Town Council refused the Applicant’s ZBA application to amend the subject property from a Future Development Zone (FD) to a Residential Four (R4) Exception Zone that would serve to implement the proposed development. The Applicant and the Town continued ongoing discussions and were able to find agreement as to the suitable development of the subject lands. It is this proposed settlement that is presented to this Tribunal at this proceeding.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
9The proposed settlement would permit the development of three apartment buildings consisting of two four-storey and one three-storey structures. The Tribunal has before it a site-specific amendment to the Town’s By-law No. 6875-18, as amended found in Exhibit 2, Schedule 1 that serves to rezone the subject property from a Future Development (FD) to a Residential Four (R4) - Exception (R4*43) Zone that:
a. allows all uses permitted in the R3 Zone;
b. the maximum height for all buildings is 14.5 metres (“m”) except any building proposed to be adjacent to 18 Thomas or 58 Havey Street, which will be subject to the required maximum height of 10.5 m;
c. that the required minimum setback for all buildings proposed be adjacent to 18 Thomas or 58 Havey Street be 5.0 m;
d. balconies are prohibited on buildings facing directly adjacent to existing residential uses;
e. a 1.5 m privacy fence is required along property lines directly adjacent to existing residential properties;
f. the location of parking is permitted to be in the front yard, exclusive of the required minimum front yard setback of 4.5 m, and that a planting strip be provided within the 4.5 m setback for screening; and,
g. a minimum setback of 7.5 m from the Algonquin Trail for any building/structure.
LAND USE PLANNING POLICY
10Mr. Symon, in his Affidavit and testimony, advised the Tribunal that he routinely takes a very comprehensive view and review of all relevant planning policy, economic development, and urban design objectives. After doing so for this application, he prepared a comprehensive Affidavit in support of the proposed settlement. The ZBA application is also supported by a multi-disciplinary project team.
Provincial Policy
11Mr. Symon reviewed s. 2 – Provincial Interests in the Act and noted the many matters that speak specifically to the proposed settlement. He opined that the proposed settlement gives proper consideration and regard to all matters related to s. 2 of the Act.
12Mr. Symon outlined the relevant policies the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), which articulates the Provincial-led planning policy regime. He made specific reference to sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.3, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.6.2, 2.1.5 and 2.2. The PPS encourages the wise management of land to achieve efficient land use patterns by directing growth to settlement areas and promoting a compact form of development. Provisions of the PPS, summarized in testimony, include:
a. promoting efficient development and land use patterns within settlement areas, which shall be the focus of growth and development;
b. within settlement areas provide densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources and are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities, which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;
c. accommodation of an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents. Accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment;
d. identify appropriate areas for intensification with appropriate development standards and directing development to locations that have an appropriate level of infrastructure and public service facilities; and,
e. supporting long-term prosperity by optimizing the use of land resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities.
13Mr. Symon is of the opinion that the proposed ZBA has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the policies found in the PPS 2020.
Municipal Policy
14Mr. Symon advised the Tribunal with respect to the management arrangement the Town has with the County of Renfrew regarding land use planning matters. The effect of this arrangement has the Town functioning as both a lower and upper tier municipality with respect to planning matters. Therefore, there is no requirement for applications of this nature to have regard to the Renfrew County Official Plan (“County OP”).
15That being said, Mr. Symon stated that the County OP, mirrors the policies found in the PPS. He made special reference to the policy directions related to developments of this nature, which should be within the urban area, on fully serviced lands, the encouragement of infill and intensification, and the redevelopment of Brownfield lands in Renfrew County.
Town of Arnprior Official Plan (“AOP”)
16The subject property is designated ‘Low/Medium Density Residential Area’ as illustrated on Schedule A of the AOP. This designation is located on the edges of the built-up area of the Town and are intended to accommodate a variety of housing forms.
17Mr. Symon, in his testimony, made note of a variety of policies in the AOP that support the proposed development including:
a. The proposal is in keeping with the “Low/Medium Density Residential Area’ designation, which provides direction for the development of apartment buildings in this designation.
b. Encouragement and support of all forms of residential infill intensification and a mix of housing where appropriate. The AOP contemplates 37% of future housing to be medium density development.
c. Encourages the redevelopment of brownfield sites.
d. Provides policy direction for apartment buildings to ensure they are visually attractive and compatible with surrounding uses. This includes lands to accommodate snow storage and parking, effective stormwater management and minimizing the impact on neighboring properties.
e. Encourages a more compact form of residential development in a manner that is compatible with the character and pattern of adjacent surrounding development.
f. Provides for an open space block adjacent to the Madawaska River in an effort to respect this important waterfront.
g. A Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the subject property. It is recommended that a soil remediation program is carried out to support the filing of a Record of Site Condition. The Record of Site Condition will be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.
18Mr. Symon is of the opinion that the proposed ZBA conforms to the AOP.
By-law No. 6875-18 (as amended)
19The ZBA before the Tribunal is a site-specific amendment to the Town’s By-law No. 6875-18, as amended and would add Exception 43 to ‘Table 10.1 Exceptions’. It defines permitted uses and the requisite zone provisions to govern the proposed development as described earlier in this Decision. Its construct is in keeping with the Town’s practices.
20In conclusion, Mr. Symon opined that the proposed ZBA represents an appropriate use of the subject property and is consistent with the policies of s. C2.4 of the AOP, which sets out the development and redevelopment policies for projects within the “Low/Medium Density Residential Area’ designation and in all other respects, conforms to the relevant policies within the AOP, has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS. It represents good land use planning, and it is in the public interest.
TRIBUNAL FINDINGS
21The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Symon in its entirety and finds the ZBA as found in Exhibit 2, Schedule 1 meets all the relevant policy tests of s. 2 of the Act, the PPS, the policies of the AOP, and meets the intent of By-law No. 6875-18.
22The proposed development represents good planning and is in the public interest.
23The Tribunal finds that the Town has extremely well established planning policy for the subject property and surrounding area and has followed a careful, complete, and comprehensive planning review of the proposed settlement and requisite ZBA. The Tribunal is impressed with the detail of analysis presented by the Town planners to Town Council with respect to the ZBA. Therefore, the content and conclusions of the recommendation report as found in Exhibit 3, Exhibit H, is important to the Tribunal’s Decision.
24The Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA aligns with the established principles of relevant provincial policy and the AOP for reasons including the following:
a. the proposed development is in keeping with the “Low/Medium Density Residential Area’ designation and is consistent with the policies of AOP, which sets out the development and redevelopment policies for projects within the “Low/Medium Density Residential Area’ designation and provides direction for the development of apartment buildings in this designation;
b. represents an efficient development and land use pattern within settlement area, which is the focus of growth and development in the Town;
c. accommodates an appropriate range of residential uses and provides a significant supply and range of housing options through infill, intensification, and redevelopment;
d. is a compact form of residential development in a form that is shown to be compatible with the character and pattern of adjacent surrounding development and is sensitive to the important waterfront of the Madawaska River;
e. makes efficient use through the redevelopment of brownfield sites while ensuring the subject property’s soils are properly remediated through a soil remediation program carried out to support the filing of a Record of Site Condition; and,
f. makes efficient use of available infrastructure to accommodate growth.
25In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement is an appropriate and a desirable addition to the Town, represents good land use planning, is consistent or in conformity with and meets the objectives of all requisite public policy and is in the public interest.
26The Tribunal is presented with a draft ZBA in the Minutes of Settlement and finds this draft ZBA to be worthy of approval by this Tribunal and accepts the premise that each party shall cover its own costs of the appeal.
ORDER
27Accordingly, the Tribunal Orders.
28THAT the appeal is allowed and By-law No. 6875-18 of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior, as amended is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; and,
29THAT each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
“Bryan W. Tuckey”
BRYAN W. TUCKEY
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Schedule “A” is amended by zoning those lands Lot 96 & 97 on Plan 115, Concession 13, Town of Arnprior from Future Development (FD) to Residential Four (R4) – Exception 43 (R4*43) as shown on the attached Schedule “1”, and,
By adding exception 43 to “Table 10.1: Exceptions” to read as follows:
SCHEDULE “1”
Lands to be rezoned from Future Development (FD) to Residential Four – Exception 43 (R4*43)