Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004393

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22 (7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Glen Rhesa McCrabb, 299077 Ontario Inc. and 1862280 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – neglect to make a decision Description: Propose a five-storeys residential condominium building on Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street. Reference Number: OPA29 Property Address: 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street Municipality/UT: Meaford/Grey OLT Case No: OLT-22-004393 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004393 OLT Case Name: Glen Rhesa McCrabb, 299077 Ontario Inc. and 1862280 Ontario Inc. v. Meaford (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Glen Rhesa McCrabb, 299077 Ontario Inc. and 1862280 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Z06-2021 Property Address: 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street Municipality/UT: Meaford/Grey OLT Case No: OLT-22-004394 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004393

Heard: October 3, 2023 by video hearing ("VH")

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Glen Rhesa McCrabb, 299077 Ontario Inc. and 1862280 Ontario Inc.	Jason Parks
Municipality of Meaford	Carly Emmett, Harold Elston (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON OCTOBER 3, 2023 BY J. INNIS AND S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had originally scheduled an eight-day hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by Glen Rhesa McCrabb, 299077 Ontario Inc. and 1862280 Ontario Inc. ("Appellant"), against the failure of the Municipality of Meaford ("Municipality") to decide on applications for an Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") and Zoning By-Law ("ZBA") in relation to the property located at 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street ("Subject Lands"). The OPA and ZBA applications (herein collectively known as the "Applications") are for the development of a five-storey residential condominium consisting of 149 residential units, two levels of underground parking and restaurant/commercial use at grade.

2Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Municipality advising that the Parties have reached a settlement on the issues and were making a request that the merit hearing be converted to a settlement hearing.

3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.

4When considering appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act ("the Act"), the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 ("PPS 2020").

5In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Application represents good planning and is in the public interest.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

6The site is legally described as Lots 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161 and part of Berry Street (Part 5 of Plan 16R-7006) Registered Plan 309 in the Town of Meaford, County of Grey. There are three separate parcels included in the Settlement Proposal that are municipally described as 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street (the Subject Lands). The Subject Lands are approximately 4,979 m2 in size and are currently occupied by one residence, three short-term accommodation residential buildings, one commercial building (being a restaurant), with the remaining majority area being grassed and vacant.

7The subject lands are in the downtown commercial area of the Town and are adjacent to Bighead River. They are surrounded by the following mix of land uses:

• To the immediate north of the Subject Lands, uses include a mix of residential and commercial.
• Immediately south of the Subject Lands is an unopened road allowance (Berry Street) with the Bighead River south of the road allowance. South of the Bighead River, the land use is primarily residential.
• Immediately east, Bayfield Street abuts the boundary of the site with the Bighead River east of the right-of-way. Northeast of the site lies the Meaford Inner Harbour lands.
• Directly west of the site, is the Meadford Public Library. Further west/northwest, along Skyes Street is the main commercial district.

PLANNING PROCESS

8In June of 2021, the Appellant submitted applications to the Municipality for an OPA and ZBA to permit a six-storey residential condominium building at 23 and 27 Trowbridge Street East. Since the time of the original submission, the developer entered into an agreement with the landowner of 12 Bayfield Street and subsequently added these lands to the site. The application was revised to include 12 Bayfield Street and to reduce the overall height of the building from six to five storeys. The revised proposal was resubmitted on January 25, 2022 to the Municipality.

9The Applications are to amend the in-effect Municipality’s Official Plan ("OP") to redesignate from Downtown Commercial Core ("DCC") and Environmental Protection ("EP") to DDC with exceptions to permit the five-storey residential building and to recognize requirements in Section C3.1 of the OP, to amend the Municipality’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 60-2009 (ZBL) by introducing the following site-specific provisions: Increase in maximum height from 11 metres to 15.5 metres from the established grade; establishment of the minimum grade of 181.00 metres above sea level ("MASL") for dry floodproofing purposes; and use of a holding provision in the amending by-law to ensure the required Archaeological Assessment is conducted prior to development.

10The Applications were deemed complete by the Municipality and the Statutory Public Meeting was held on May 16, 2022. The County of Grey staff comments were reviewed prior to the Public Meeting and they identified no concerns with respect to the applications.

11The Municipality failed to make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframes as deemed in the Planning Act. As such, the Appellant appealed the lack of decision to the Tribunal.

Submissons

12Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and submitted said documents as exhibits to the hearing:

Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Service by Genevieve Scott Exhibit 2 Document Book by the Appellant Exhibit 3 Visual Evidence Book by CPC for the Appellant.

13On behalf of the Parties, the Appellant presented Genevieve Scott, Senior Planner with Cuesta Planning Consultants ("CPC"). Ms. Scott is a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario, a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and has been practicing as a professional planner for over 24 years. She was duly qualified on consent to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to this matter.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

14Ms. Scott took the Tribunal through her review and assessment of the Act, the PPS 2020, the County of Grey OP "Recolour Grey" (2019), the Municipality’s OP (November 2012-Office Consolidation), the Municipality’s OP Update-OPA 34 (approved April 2023) ("OPA34"), and the Municipality’s Comprehensive Zoning B-Law 60-2009, as they pertain the application.

Planning Act

15It was the opinion of Ms. Scott that the OPA has proper regard for matters of Provincial interest pursuant to Section 2 of the Act and, more specifically:

• the natural features on the Subject Lands will be enhanced and protected;
• has regard in its built form for the existing cultural and heritage resources in the surrounding area;
• the proposal will efficiently utilize existing infrastructure and promote orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
• the redevelopment will contribute to a range of housing opportunities and is an appropriate location of growth and development; and
• the proposal will promote a well-designed built form that encourages active transportation and includes improved access to public spaces.

PPS 2020

16Concerning the PPS 2020, it was Ms. Scott’s opinion that the OPA is consistent with the PPS 2020 as the proposal demonstrates the direction of creating a healthy, safe and liveable community, through efficient land use, employment and housing opportunities, while allowing for appropriate intensification to occur.

17Ms. Scott gave the opinion that the proposal will increase the density and diversity of housing in the Municipality with a higher-density compact form of residential use and will result in the efficient use of existing infrastructure.

18Ms. Scott opined that the site’s proximity to commercial, recreational and institutional uses supports active transportation, and its design addresses matters of compatibility to the existing historical architecture and setbacks on the west side of the building will reduce impact to the adjacent library use.

19It is the opinion of Ms. Scott that through the implementation of floodproofing requirements, natural hazard policies are me by the proposal.

20In reviewing the proposal against the relevant policies of the PPS 2020, it is the opinion of Ms. Scott, that the OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS 2020.

County of Grey Official Plan (2019) – Recolour Grey

21Recolour Grey, as the upper-tier OP policy, provides the overarching policy framework to which each lower-tier Official Plan document must conform. Recolour Grey has been updated in early 2023, when OPA 11 was incorporated into the plan, save and except for portions of OPA 11 still under appeal. OPA 11 was required to include the latest residential and employment growth forecasts into Recolour Grey.

22It is the opinion of Ms. Scott, that the proposal is consistent with Recolour Grey as it will have access to municipal water, sanitary and stormwater services and will be conveniently located in proximity to cultural, institutional and recreation facilities; that the proposal represents a modified design that has taken surrounding architecture and land use into consideration; that the proposal will increase density in the downtown by redeveloping an underutilized site; and, it is in-keeping with the upper and lower-tier floodplain policies.

Municipality of Meaford Official Plan ("OP")

23The site is currently designated as DCC and EP in the OP. The site is also identified as being within the Two Zone Flood Study area and falls within a Source Water Protection Zone.

24Ms. Scott’s opinion is that the proposal conforms with the OP as the redevelopment is of an underutilized site that will use existing infrastructure and services; it will increase active transportation, positively impacting air quality; and assist in the viability of the downtown core.

25As the proposal will increase the range of housing options and exceeds the policy minimum set for overall development density of 20 units per hectare by providing a density of 298 units per hectare at the site, it is the opinion of Ms. Scott that the proposal will support the Municipality achieving its intensification objectives and housing needs.

26A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIS) was completed to assess the potential for direct and indirect impacts to adjacent historical properties as well as the Meaford Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Ms. Scott opined that the proposal was assessed against applicable provincial criteria and no impact to off-site historical or cultural resources was identified provided certain design criteria and below-grade parking was implemented on the site.

27Ms. Scott opined that the design blends effectively with surrounding architecture using compatible materials and architectural details, that the upper story setbacks on the west side of the site and the improved public access to the riverfront enhance the character of the existing urban area.

28Ms. Scott opined that the proposal would require a site-specific policy to recognize the development limits at the site as identified within the Two-Zone Flood Study and that this site-specific policy will serve to implement Section B1.3.5.2 (e) of the Official Plan.

29Ms. Scott testified that at the time of submission, the bonusing provisions of Section E1.1.1 were in place and the proposal requested an increased height based on policy D5 d) and that this policy is no longer applicable to the proposal given recent legislative changes and OP policy updates.

30Ms. Scott testified that the proposed OPA appropriately addresses all relevant policies of the OP, represents good planning, is appropriate and in keeping with the intent of the OP.

31In April 2023, the County of Grey approved new OP policy via a major housekeeping amendment to the Municipality’s OP ("OPA 34"). OPA 34 was not appealed and is now in effect. Notwithstanding the fact that OPA 34 was not in-force at the time of the application submission, it is the opinion of Ms. Scott that the proposal is still consistent with the policy direction of OPA 34.

Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law 60-2009

32Ms. Scott opined that the proposed ZBA maintains the zoned Downtown Commercia (C1) and EP but adds site-specific modifications to implement the increased height proposed in the OPA, recognize required setbacks from the west lot line, as well as floodproofing requirements required to accommodate the proposed building design.

33The proposed ZBA will also include a holding provision, which Ms. Scott opined will ensure certain requirements, including a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment and financial requirements, are met prior to registration of the Site Plan.

34Ms. Scott testified that the proposed changes to the current zoning by-law are appropriate and facilitate a redevelopment that is in conformity with Provincial, County and Municipal policies.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS

35A joint Participant statement and an individual participate statement was submitted as part of these proceedings. Ms. Scott testified that the proposed OPA and ZBA has taken the concerns outlined into consideration through modifications to the building design, the Holding designation on the ZBA and will continue to ensure concerns are adequately addressed as part of the site plan and building permit approval processes.

SUMMARY OPINION

36Ms. Scott opined that the proposal changes the site designation to add policies which will permit Downtown Core Commercial with an exception designation to recognize requirements in Section C3.1 of the Municipality’s OP.

37Ms. Scott opined that a C1 with exceptions and EP with exceptions zoning will provide site-specific relief from maximum height restrictions, establish a flood proofing elevation at the Site and set the 4th and 5th floors back from the west lot line.

38Ms. Scott opined that the Downtown Core Commercial designation allows for street level multi-unit apartment development provided the proposed use will enhance urban life, is pedestrian in scale, and the development will blend in and complement adjacent buildings.

39Ms. Scott opined in her evidence in support of the OPA and ZBA applications, that the OPA is consistent with the policies and directives of the 2020 PPS and conforms with the County of Grey’s OP. Additionally, Ms. Scott opined that the OPA conforms to the Town’s OP, as implemented through a site-specific OPA, and otherwise represents good planning in the public interest.

ANALSYS AND FINDINGS

40Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the settlement provided by Ms. Scott, the Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal is a matter of Provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

41The Tribunal finds that the evidence provided demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the PPS 2020 and that the evidence has demonstrated that the proposal conforms with the general intent and purpose of the Municipality’s OP.

42The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal before it has taken into consideration the items brought forth by the Participants as demonstrated by the holding designation on the Subject Lands. The holding symbol demonstrates that the participant’s concerns will be taken into consideration throughout the site plan and building permit process.

43The settlement proposal represents an efficient use of the Subject Lands and represents good land use planning.

INTERIM ORDER

44The Tribunal issued an Oral Decision on October 3, 2023, which allowed the appeals in part and approved the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law for the lands known municipally as 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East and 12 Bayfield Street in the Municipality of Meaford.

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS in accordance with the Oral Decision that;

1. The Tribunal grants, in part, the appeal of the request to amend the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan made by the Appellant and approves the Official Plan Amendment attached as Attachment "1" hereto but withholds its final Order amending the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan subject to the satisfaction of the matters set out in paragraph 3 below.

2. The Tribunal grants, in part, the appeal of the application for zoning by-law amendment made by the Appellant and approves the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment "2" hereto but withholds its final Order amending the Municipality of Meaford Comprehensive Zoning By-law 60-2009 subject to the satisfaction of the matters set out in paragraph 3 below.

3. The Tribunal’s final Order amending the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan and the Municipality of Meaford Comprehensive Zoning By-law 60-2009 to permit the development is withheld until the Tribunal has been advised in writing by the Municipality’s Solicitor that the form and content for the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are satisfactory to the Municipality of Meaford and the Tribunal has reviewed the final approved planning instruments.

4. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that there are difficulties in satisfying the above condition for the issuance of the Tribunal's final Order in respect of any of the above-mentioned appeals.

46The Panel Members will remain seized for the purpose of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

47If the Parties do not submit the final approved drafts of the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan Amendment and the corresponding Zoning By-law Amendment by November 28, 2023, the Parties shall provide a status update to the Tribunal as to the timing of the final forms of the Official Plan Amendment and the corresponding Zoning By-law Amendment for approval by the Tribunal.

"J. Innis"

J. INNIS MEMBER

"S. deBoer"

S. deBOER MEMBER

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.