Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 08, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000157
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Justin Morin
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the rezoning of subject lands from Rural to Highway Commercial to permit all uses in Highway Commercial zone
Reference Number(s): Z-2022-11, By-law No. 2023-8788
Property Address: Mountjoy Concession 5, North Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 6R-8233, Part 4 (Laforest Road)
Municipality: City of Timmins
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000157
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000157
OLT Case Name: Morin v. Timmins (City)
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representatives |
|---|---|
| Justin Morin (“Applicant”) | Self-represented |
| City of Timmins (“City”) | Did not appear |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON NOVEMBER 03, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by the Applicant of a refusal by the City pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”). The Appeal concerns lands located at the southwest corner of Laforest Road and MacLean Drive legally described as Concession 5, North Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 6R8233, Part 4, Mountjoy Township (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is seeking to amend the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2011-710 (“ZBL”) to rezone the Subject Property from Rural to Highway Commercial.
2The applicant is proposing to construct a two-storey commercial office, a one- storey garage/shop, a garage and eight self-storage units.
3City staff supported the Application and recommended its approval.
4The City did not appear at the Hearing to contest the Application.
5Mark Guillemette, who had been granted Party status, withdrew from this appeal on July 28, 2023.
POSITION OF PARTICIPANTS
6There are three Participants in this proceeding: Darren Dinel, Lisa Lacombe, and Pamela Roy. They opposed the Applications on a number of grounds, including alleged increases in commercial traffic, incompatible use, increased noise and lighting, the Applicant’s previous non-compliance with zoning requirements, and alleged negative environmental impacts. The grounds were addressed by the evidence before the Tribunal.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
7The uncontested evidence for this appeal is in the form of a Planning Report prepared by City staff, dated January 25, 2023, which is contained in the appeal record.
8Although this is an uncontested matter, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the Application meets the legislative tests.
9For the following summary reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Application meets the legislative tests.
10The uses the Applicant has proposed are not permitted under the current Rural (RD-RU) zone but would be permitted within the Highway Commercial (EA-CH) zone.
11Schedule Al of the Land Use Plan of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) identifies the Subject Property as Resource Development Area (Section 3.4.1). The intent of the designation is to provide areas for land use activities or uses which may be incompatible with those found in other land use designations which require large tracts of land, which involve resource-related activities, or which are centred on the natural uses, recognizing the potential of the natural environment (Section 3.4.1). Section 3.4.2 provides that a broad range of uses is contemplated by this designation, including mining activities, forestry activities, mineral aggregate operations, peat extraction, agricultural operations, resource-related uses, tourism and recreational uses, storage facilities, transportation facilities, infrastructure corridors, waste disposal and recycling facilities, and limited residential development. Further, Section 3.4.4 provides that land use compatibility will be the primary factor in determining whether new uses shall be permitted. The proposed use of the Subject Property will be in keeping with land uses that are close.
12Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed amendment to the ZBL conforms to the OP pursuant to s. 24 of the Act.
13The Tribunal also finds that no adverse impacts are anticipated with the proposed amendment to the ZBL. The Planning Report extensively addresses the various concerns raised by the Participants. The Tribunal agrees that there are no unresolved land use planning concerns.
14Finally, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the Application raises no concerns with respect to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, 2011. The proposed amendment to the ZBL represents good land use planning.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and By-law No. 2011-7100 of the City of Timmins is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of City of Timmins to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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
That Schedule 8 of the City of Timmins Zoning By- law No 2011- 7100, as amended, is hereby further amended as it pertains to those lands shown more particularly on Schedule 1 affixed hereto and forming part of this By-law, by placing the said lands into the Highway Commercial (EA-CH) Zone.
Schedule 1