Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004618
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2374577 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the construction of a 9-unit, two storey apartment building
Reference Number: OPA-No.14
Property Address: 6 Bruce Avenue
Municipality/UT: Leamington/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004618
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004618
OLT Case Name: 2374577 Ontario Ltd. v. Leamington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2374577 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the construction of a 9-unit, two storey apartment building
Reference Number: ZBA-No.261
Property Address: 6 Bruce Avenue
Municipality/UT: Leamington/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004619
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004618
Heard: August 22, 2023 in writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 2374577 Ontario Ltd. | Steven Vitella |
| Municipality of Leamington | Matthew Todd |
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal arises following the refusal by the Municipality of Leamington (“Municipality”) regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) (collectively, the “Applications”) with respect to lands municipally known as 4 Bruce Avenue, in the Municipality (“Subject Property”).
2This matter has come before the Tribunal as a Settlement Hearing which was heard in writing. The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following materials and submissions:
i. The uncontested opinion evidence of Spencer Phillips, a Planner with the Municipality of Leamington, contained in his comprehensive Affidavit sworn August 8, 2023 (marked as Exhibit 1); ii. The Minutes of Settlement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington and 2374577 Ontario Ltd. and dated August 8, 2023; and, iii. The Draft Order submitted by the Parties on consent.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND EFFECT OF PROPOSAL
3The Subject Property is:
i. within the primary settlement area as indicated on Schedule A2 of the County of Essex Official Plan (“EOP”); ii. designated “Residential” on Schedule “A” of the Leamington Official Plan (“OP”); and, iii. currently zoned Residential (R6) Zone.
4The Applications are to permit construction of a two-storey apartment building with nine (9) units including: three two-bedroom units in the basement, three two-bedroom units on the main floor and three two-bedroom units on the second storey as well as internal sidewalks, a garbage enclosure, landscaping and additional plantings.
5The Proposal seeks to implement OPA No. 14, which establishes Special Policy Area No. 2 permitting a two-storey, nine-unit (multi–unit) residential dwelling with a maximum density of 72 units per gross hectare in accordance with the provisions established by a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 890-09 (“ZBL”), as amended, to change the zoning from Residential (R6) to Residential (R4-11(h)).
EVIDENCE
6Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form, the Tribunal qualified Spencer Phillips, a Land Use Planner with the Municipality, to provide opinion evidence in Land Use Planning.
7Mr. Phillips stated that the basis of the settlement involves the reduction of the size of the development’s parking spaces and the increase in the total number of standard spaces from ten to twelve. Specifically:
i. the size of all standard parking spaces on the Subject Property will be reduced from the required 3 metres (“m”) to 2.75 m; ii. the parallel parking space will be 2.4 m wide and 6 m long; and, iii. this will permit two additional standard parking spaces to be created on the Subject Property.
8He opined that the OPA and ZBA applications, as modified, represent good planning, are in the public interest, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conform with the EOP and the OP, and satisfy the criteria to be considered when amending the ZBL.
9Mr. Phillips proffered that the Proposal is consistent with the direction of the PPS as it would provide an additional type of housing in an appropriate location, would create needed rental opportunities and would help meet the community’s housing needs. He stated that the Proposal does not pose any environment, public health or safety concerns. It was Mr. Phillips’ opinion that the Proposal’s increased density was appropriate, could be supported by the planned infrastructure upgrades, would not create negative traffic impacts and was transit-supportive.
10The EOP directs growth to primary settlement areas and encourages intensification within those areas. Mr. Phillips opined that the Proposal conforms to the EOP, provides a “residential intensification opportunity and has the potential to increase the vitality of the neighbourhood ….”
11The OP encourages a wide range of residential types be permitted to meet the needs of all anticipated households through infilling, conversions and redevelopment in a controlled and progressive manner that respects servicing capacity. Mr. Phillips highlighted that the Proposal meets these objectives as it is in an area designated for residential development, would contribute to the variety of housing types in an existing built-up area, features suitable transition and will help to increase the housing supply, including rental accommodations.
12Regarding the ZBL, it was Mr. Phillips’ opinion that the Proposal “meets the zone requirements, including setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaped open space of the R4 zone”, but it is currently zoned R6, which excludes apartment-style buildings less than six storeys in height. The Subject Property is not large enough to accommodate a six-storey building; hence, the application for the rezoning to an R4 zone, which would permit the proposed two-storey apartment building.
13Speaking to the proposed changes to the parking spaces, he stated that:
…the negligible reduction in size (i.e. from the 3 metres required to 2.75 metres) and number (i.e. from the 14 required to 13) of parking spaces is acceptable and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law … Due to the [Subject] Property’s proximity to the municipal trail and the on-demand transit system, a reduction of one (1) standard space is acceptable. Each unit … will have one (1) parking space, with three (3) additional spaces for either a unit wanting a second space or for visitor parking … Further, the reduction in the size of the standard parking space by 0.25 metres in order to accommodate additional spaces is insignificant ….”
(Exhibit 1, paragraphs [55 – 57])
14Mr. Phillips explained that under the proposed new R4-11(h) zoning, the Subject Property’s existing frontage would be recognized and would become the minimum requirement. He also spoke to the recommended Holding (h) symbol, which is to be applied as the “municipal sewer in the area … [is] at the maximum capacity .… When the Municipal Sewer System is upgraded and servicing becomes available, the H symbol will be removed …. [The] upgrades are … expected to be finished before the end of 2023.”
FINDINGS
15The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Phillips as presented in his detailed affidavit and similarly, finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS, conform to the EOP and the OP, and reflect principles of good land use planning in the public interest. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal will create additional housing units in an appropriate location for growth, will provide additional housing types as well as much-needed rental housing in an area with appropriate servicing and close proximity to transit.
16The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, and to the decisions of the Municipality and the information it had before it when the matter was decided as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed, in part, and:
i. the Municipality of Leamington Official Plan is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; ii. the Municipality of Leamington Zoning By-law No. 890-09, as amended, is further amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order; and, iii. the Clerk of the Municipality of Leamington may format and number the amendments for record keeping purposes.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
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.