Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 14, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001637
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: SmartCentres REIT, 2603848 Ontario Ltd. and 2603849 Ontario Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a mixed use, five storey retirement home Reference Number: OPA 1617.46 Property Address: 105, 113-159 Garden Drive Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001637 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001637 OLT Case Name: SmartCentres REIT v. Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: SmartCentres REIT, 2603848 Ontario Ltd. and 2603849 Ontario Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a mixed use, five storey retirement home Reference Number: Z.1617.46 Property Address: 105, 113-159 Garden Drive Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001638 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001637
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: SmartCentres REIT, 2603848 Ontario Ltd. and 2603849 Ontario Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a mixed use, five storey retirement home Reference Number: 1617.058.01 Property Address: 105, 113-159 Garden Drive Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001741 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001637
Heard: September 19, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 2603848 Ontario Ltd., 2603849 Ontario Ltd., and SmartCentres REIT (“Applicant/Appellant”) | Denise Baker |
| Town of Oakville (“Town”) | Jennifer Huctwith |
| Region of Halton (“Region”) | Jing Bo Yu |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
12603848 Ontario Ltd., 2603849 Ontario Ltd., and SmartCentres REIT originally appealed against the failure of Council to render decisions with respect to applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and grant site plan approval in order to permit lands known municipally as 105-159 Garden Drive to be redeveloped with a five-storey retirement residence with commercial space at grade along the Lakeshore Road frontage.
2The Tribunal was advised, prior to the commencement of the hearing scheduled to consider the merits of the appeals, that settlement had been achieved between the Parties, who jointly requested that the settlement of the appeals of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be considered by the Tribunal, and that the approval of the site plan, reflecting the revisions derived through settlement, be held in abeyance to allow the Parties to finalize the resubmission.
3In support of the settlement, the Parties agreed to proffer one witness, Bruce Hall, who was qualified to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in areas of land use planning.
4The current designation of the consolidated site would permit a four-storey, mixed use residential and commercial building on the south portion of the site, together with eighteen townhouse units fronting onto Garden Drive.
5The proposal as revised proposes a five-storey retirement home with a minimum of 130 square metres of publicly accessible commercial space along the Lakeshore Road frontage, and a recessed fifth storey entirely dedicated and restricted to indoor and outdoor amenity space for the residents of the building. The Tribunal was advised in evidence that the blended model of independent and assisted living is considered to be “Special Needs” housing within the Oakville Official Plan, and a recognized complement to achieving the desired range and diversity of housing types in a complete community in accordance with the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) Area, as implemented through the Official Plans of the Region and Town.
6It was the summary opinion of Mr. Hall that the proposal, as more particularly revised, is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) to intensify where appropriate, to efficiently utilize existing infrastructure and community facilities, to enhance the range of housing options and land uses promoting active transportation, all in furtherance of promoting the economic prosperity of complete communities. The proposal similarly conforms to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan, as implemented through the Official Plans of both the Region and Town, which recognize this portion of the Kerr Community as an area targeted for rejuvenation through redevelopment of mixed use projects in compact urban forms.
FINDINGS
7The five-storey proposal, with publicly accessible commercial space along the Lakeshore Road frontage, rises to the potential of the site to satisfy all of the above objectives.
8The proposed massing is appropriate to the existing and planned built form context as the balance of the block, and lands on the west site of Garden Road, which have been redeveloped to accommodate townhouses of three or three-and-a-half storeys, a four-storey residential condominium building, and a five-storey residential building, whose fifth floor is restricted to amenity area. The balance of lands adjacent to the west, are designated for high density residential use.
9Mr. Hall was of the opinion that the revision to the façades worked out in conjunction with the Town’s urban design staff, would bring the proposal into compliance with all of the urban design guidelines informing such forms of infill development and would enhance both the public realm and the privacy of the private amenity areas of the townhouses abutting to the east.
10He was further of the opinion that the two implementing instruments, Official Plan Amendment No. 52 and Zoning By-law No. 2022-099, effectively permit the proposed development, and restrict or require the proposal to proceed in accordance with the settlement, and in conformity with the Official Plan.
11The Tribunal is satisfied, having reviewed all of the documentation filed in support of the proposal, and after having heard the uncontradicted viva voce evidence of the sole witness, that the proposal, as revised, represents good planning and is in the public interest, as it is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan, and the Official Plans for the Town, and the Region.
ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL orders that the appeals are allowed in part, and that Official Plan Amendment No. 52, attached hereto as Schedule 1, and forming part of this Order, is hereby approved; and further that Zoning By-law No. 2022-099, also attached hereto as Schedule 2, is hereby approved.
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN VINCENT 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.
SCHEDULE 1
SCHEDULE 2