Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 07, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004190
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 1047 Richmond Investment LP
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: OPA and ZBA to develop subject property into three mixed-use buildings
Reference Number: D01-01-22-0001
Property Address: 1047 Richmond Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004190
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004190
OLT Case Name: 1047 Richmond Investment LP v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number: D02-02-22-0012
Property Address: 1047 Richmond Road
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004191
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004190
OLT Case Name: 1047 Richmond Investment LP v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: December 5, 2023, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1047 Richmond Investment LP (“Applicant”)
Michael Polowin Alice Mihailescu
City of Ottawa (“City”)
Tim Marc
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAn-pierre blais ON December 5 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
1The Applicant seeks to redevelop a site municipally known as 1047 Richmond Road in the City located at the northeast corner of Richmond Road and New Orchard Avenue North. To this end, the Applicant had applied to amend the City’s Official Plan (“OP”), as well as Zoning By-law No. 2008-250. The Appeals are brought respectively pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), due to the failure of the City to decide in the prescribed time.
2Originally, the proposed development was a three-tower development consisting of a 40-storey tower, a 38-storey tower and a 36-storey tower, with a shared six-storey podium and a public park.
3Disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal as a settlement motion. The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, heard and considered the following materials:
a. The uncontested opinion evidence of Lisa Stern, a professional land use planner employed by the City, contained in her comprehensive Affidavit sworn on December 1, 2023 and marked as Exhibit 1;
b. Minutes of Settlement, dated November 10, 2023, and attached to Ms. Stern’s Affidavit as Exhibit D; and,
c. Minutes of City Council held on November 22, 2023, endorsing the settlement, and forming part of Exhibit C to Ms. Stern’s Affidavit.
4The Tribunal qualified Ms. Stern as an expert in land use planning.
5The evidence of Ms. Stern reflects revisions to the applications that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. Under the revised development proposal, dated October 6, 2023, the Applicant would construct two towers of 38 and 40 storeys on their respective three-storey podiums. The two buildings would be connected to an underground parking garage. The redevelopment also provides for a privately-owned publicly accessible space fronting Richmond Road, as well as a public park.
6A holding provision has been included in the proposed Zoning By-law to restrict development until specific conditions have been met relating to fire flows and wind conditions. The removal of the holding symbol may be phased as the site may be developed in phases.
7The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Ms. Stern as presented in her Affidavit and in her testimony (including very minor amendments to her Affidavit), and similarly finds that the subject applications, as revised, have regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to the City’s OP 2022, including the Sherbourne and New Orchard Secondary Plan, have regard to the Urban Design Guidelines along Traditional Mainstreets, represent good planning and are in the public interest. Furthermore, considering the settlement having been endorsed by the City, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising regard for the decision of the City pursuant to section. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act.
ORDER
8THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
a. The Appeal against the failure of the City of Ottawa to adopt the requested Official Plan Amendment is allowed in part and the Sherbourne New Orchard Secondary Plan in Volume 2A of the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
b. The Appeal against the failure to enact the requested zoning amendment is allowed in part, and By-law No. 2008-250 of the City of Ottawa is amended in accordance with Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Ottawa 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
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
- Amend the Sherbourne New Orchard Secondary Plan in Volume 2A as follows:
a. Remove Section 3 policy 4 a “Be with buildings up to 20 storeys in - height…” and replace with the following:
i. Be with two towers of a maximum of 38 and 40 storeys on 1047 Richmond Road. The proposed development shall provide a minimum 200 square metres of Privately Owned Public Space.
b. Amend Policy 4.1. to read “High-rise buildings are limited in the plan area between 10 to 30 storeys, with the exception of 1047 Richmond Road which will be in accordance with Section 3.4 a"
c. Redesignate the property from “Maximum 20 storeys after density redistribution” to “Areas not appropriate for on-site density redistribution” on Schedule C
Schedule C
Attachment 2
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
The Zoning Map of By-law No. 2008-250, entitled the “City of Ottawa Zoning By-law” is amended by rezoning the lands shown as Area A on Schedule A from TM[2494] H(25) to TM[2494]-h.
Section 239 – Urban Exceptions of the said By-law No. 2008-250 is amended by replacing exception [2494] with the following exception:
I Exception Number
II Applicable Zone
Exception Provisions
III Additional Land Uses Permitted
IV Land Uses Prohibited
V Provisions
[2494]
TM[2494]-h
all uses until such time as the holding symbol is removed.
Front Yard, Corner Side Yard, & Interior Side Yard: i) minimum setback of storeys 1-4 up to 15m in height, whichever is lesser: a) 5m from any property line. b) 3m abutting a park.
Balconies may not project any closer than 3m to an interior yard or yard abutting the park.
Minimum Tower Setback: i) 12.5m from a rear and interior side property line. ii) 7m from a yard abutting New Orchard Street. iii) 6.5m abutting a park iv) 22m from Richmond Road.
Minimum tower separation: 25m between two towers on the same property.
Maximum number of towers: 2
Maximum FSI: 6.3
Maximum Building Height: i) 15m and 4 storeys with the exception of: a) Eastern Tower: 121m (38 storeys) b) Western Tower: 127m (40 storeys)
Maximum tower floor plate: 750m2 of gross floor area.
A minimum 1000m2 park must be provided at the corner of Richmond Road and New Orchard Street.
A minimum 200m2 privately owned public space must be provided and have frontage on Richmond Road.
Minimum non-residential space at grade: 1000m2
Loading spaces may not but Richmond Road or New Orchard Street.
No driveway is permitted from Richmond Road.
Facades facing Richmond Road must include at least one active entrance to each non-residential use occupying the ground floor and abutting the front yard.
The following sections are not applicable: Table 197(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and Sections 197(4) and (13).
The area of exception [2494] is considered one lot for zoning purposes.
The holding symbol may only be removed at such a time as the following has been completed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning Real Estate and Economic Development: i) Site Plan Control Approval which include the demonstration that required fire flows for the development can be met. ii) Site Plan Control Approval which include the demonstration that wind conditions on the surrounding public realm are suitable for their intended use. Any mitigation measures required, must be implemented on the subject property. iii) Partial removal of a holding symbol may be considered to provide for phased development. The submission and approval of an application to lift the holding provisions on a phased basis may be considered provided the requirements for that development phase satisfy the requirements for the lifting of the holding zone specified above.
Schedule A