Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004589
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Cachet MDRE (Mount Hope) Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit the development of 104 townhouse units with 261 parking spaces
Reference Number: DA-22-032
Property Address: 474 Provident Way
Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004589
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004589
OLT Case Name: Cachet MDRE (Mount Hope) Inc. v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: August 11, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Cachet MDRE (Mount Hope) Inc. ("Appellant") | Rodney Gill |
| City of Hamilton ("Respondent") | Patrick MacDonald |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT G. ACKERMAN ON AUGUST 11, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This matter comes before the Tribunal as a Settlement Hearing of the Appeal brought under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act (the "Act") by the Appellant from the failure of the Respondent to render a Decision on the Appellant's Application for Site Plan Approval respecting the lands and premises municipally known as 424 Provident Way, and more particularly, described as Block 264, Plan 62M-1275, Township of Glanford, in the City of Hamilton, comprising 2.39 hectares (5.91 acres) (the "Subject Lands").
2Michael Hanney, a Registered Professional Planner, was the sole witness called by the Parties. Mr. Hanney was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in matters of Architectural Design and Land Use Planning in general, and with respect to the issues specific to this Appeal.
3Mr. Hanney's signed Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty Form was filed and marked as Exhibit 1, and Mr. Hanney's Affidavit sworn August 8, 2023, was filed and marked as Exhibit 2.
4Mr. Hanney stated that, in 2017, he had acted as the planning consultant for the Application for the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision under City of Hamilton File No. 25T-200723 for the lands formerly known as 9255 Airport Road, of which the Subject Lands are a part, being designated as Block 264, Plan 62M-1275.
5Mr. Hanney stated that he is familiar with the Subject Lands and has visited the Subject Lands and surrounding area on several occasions.
6Mr. Hanney testified that in formulating his opinions regarding the proposed Site Plan, he reviewed:
- the various iterations of the Application for Site Plan Approval;
- the Settlement Plan and accompanying Settlement Conditions;
- the policies of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan including the Site Specific Policies B.5.4.11.8 that came into effect as part of OPA 90; and,
- the Site Specific Zoning By-Law No. RM3-284(B).
7The Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions were produced and identified as Tab B, Exhibit 2.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
THE APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
8Mr. Hanney described that the proposed Site Plan provides for 47 two-storey Townhouse Units, 19 three-storey Townhouse Units, and 40 three-storey Rear Lane Townhouse Units, for a total of 106 Medium Density Townhouse Units. A 741.0 square metre (2,431.1 square feet) common outdoor amenity area is to be centrally located within the proposed Site Plan. The proposed Site Plan provides two vehicular access points to the interior of the Plan. These access points, which also include pedestrian sidewalks, are located on Provident Way and Spitfire Drive. Within the proposed Site Plan vehicular access to each Unit's driveway and garage is achieved with a pattern of 6.0 metre wide private condominium roads. Units fronting onto the two public streetscapes (Provident Way and Spitfire Drive) are provided with individual pedestrian walkways that connect the public sidewalks to the individual Unit front doors. The remainder of the Units within the Site Plan are provided with individual pedestrian walkways that connect to the internal larger walkway system within the Site Plan. A walkway easement requested by the Respondent is to be located at the south-east corner of the Site Plan. This easement will provide public access from Spitfire Drive to the grounds of Mount Hope Elementary School located directly to the northeast of the Subject Property.
9Mr. Hanney described that there were two submissions of the Site Plan Application with changes having been made to the proposed Site Plan after both the first and second submissions. Mr. Hanney stated that the changes were made primarily to respond to comments the Appellant had received from the Respondent. The Settlement Plan and Conditions reflect the accumulated changes to the proposed Site Plan.
10Mr. Hanney described that the primary configuration changes made to the proposed Site Plan following the first submission for Site Plan Approval, on November 5, 2021, were:
- The replacement of the proposed Street Townhouses fronting onto Spitfire Drive and the internal condominium road with Rear Lane Townhouses fronting onto Spitfire Drive, the internal condominium road, and Provident Way;
- The replacement of the originally proposed 6.5 metre wide traditional Townhouses with 5.5 metre wide traditional Townhouses;
- The inclusion of a centrally located common outdoor amenity area; and,
- The inclusion of the 6.0 metre public easement along the Subject Property's eastern property limit to accommodate a public walkway connecting Spitfire Drive to the grounds of Mount Hope Elementary School.
11Mr. Hanney described that the primary configuration changes made to the proposed Site Plan following the second submission for Site Plan Approval, on August 31, 2022, were:
- The shortening of the 6.0 metre walkway easement on the eastern property boundary and the addition of Walkway Block 19 for the easement;
- The addition of two Townhouse units, which increased the total Site Plan yield from 104 to 106 units; and,
- The addition of 1.5-metre concrete walkway between Blocks 16 and 17.
TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
12Mr. Hanney testified that the terms of the proposed settlement are as set out in the Settlement Plan and the Settlement Conditions filed as Tab B, Exhibit 2.
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
13Mr. Hanney described that the Subject Lands are designated on Map B.5.4-1, Mount Hope – Land Use Plan, in the City of Hamilton Official Plan as Institutional, and are identified as Area H of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan. Area H, in turn, is subject to the Site Specific Policy of B.5.4.11.8 in OPA 90 of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan. Mr. Hanney stated that his opinion in regards to these Site Specific Policies permit "multiple dwellings" and maximum building heights of four storeys, in addition to institutional uses.
14Mr. Hanney stated that the conditions of draft Plan of Subdivision approval for the Subdivision referred to in paragraph 4 above, identified the Subject Lands as the location of a potential Catholic elementary school. He testified that during the Site Plan Application process the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board advised that it did not wish to acquire the Subject Lands for the purposes of constructing an elementary school facility, which, in turn, has allowed for the proposed development of "multiple dwellings" on the Subject Lands.
15Mr. Hanney stated that the Subject Lands are subject to the provisions of Zoning By-law No. RM3-284(B). He stated his opinion that the Zoning By-law exception contained within Zoning By-law No. RM3-284(B), when read together with specific exceptions found in zones RM3-284(A) and RM3-284, allow for the proposed "multiple building" townhouse forms.
PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16Mr. Hanney concluded that after his review of the proposed Site Plan and the relevant Policies of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan, as well as the Site Specific Zoning By-law, it is his professional planning opinion that the Settlement Plan and the Settlement Conditions, appropriately conform to the Policies of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan and implement the applicable Site Specific Zoning By-law provisions, and further, that the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions appropriately address the matters referenced in Section 41 of the Planning Act, and represent good land use planning. Mr. Hanney respectfully recommended the approval of the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions.
CONCLUSION
17The Tribunal accepts the uncontested expert planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Hanney. The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions conform to the Policies of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan.
18The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions implement the Site Specific Zoning provisions and Site Specific Policy of B.5.4.11.8 (OPA 90) of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan.
19The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions appropriately address the matters referenced in Section 41 of the Planning Act.
20The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Plan and Settlement Conditions represent good land use planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part and that the Settlement Plan (Attachment 1) and the Settlement Conditions (Attachment 2) are hereby approved.
"Robert G. Ackerman"
ROBERT G. ACKERMAN 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
ATTACHMENT 2