Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 14, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003595 (Formerly PL180319)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2513564 Ontario Limited

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 5000 - Refusal or neglect of Township of Springwater to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Agricultural

Proposed Zoning: Residential (R2), Institutional (I), Open Space (OS) and Environmental Protection (EP)

Purpose: To permit a proposed plan of subdivision

Property Address/Description: 2212 Russell Road

Municipality: Township of Springwater

Municipality File No.: ZB-2006-003

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003595

Legacy Case No.: PL180319

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003595

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180319

OLT Case Name: 2513564 Ontario Limited v. Springwater (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

Applicant and Appellant: 2513564 Ontario Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of Township of Springwater to make a decision

Purpose: To permit a proposed plan of subdivision

Property Address/Description: 2212 Russell Road

Municipality: Township of Springwater

Municipality File No.: SU-2007-003

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003596

Legacy Case No.: PL180320

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003595

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180319

Heard: November 3, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Township of Springwater	Bruce Engell
2513564 Ontario Ltd.	Leo Longo
County of Simcoe	Marshall Green

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns the settlement of an appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) by 2513564 Ontario Ltd. (“Applicant”) of the non-decision of the Township of Springwater (“Township”) Council following its applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision (collectively the “Applications”) approval to permit the proposed development at lands legally known as Part of the North Half of Lot 11, Concession 3; Vespra; Township of Springwater, County of Simcoe (“Subject Property”).

2The Subject Property consists of an area of approximately 39 hectares (“ha”), with approximately 198 metres (“m”) of discontinuous frontage on Russell Road and 310 m on Gill Road in the settlement of Midhurst.

3The Subject Property is designated “Settlements” within the County of Simcoe (“County”) Official Plan (“OP”).

4The Subject Property is designated in the Township OP and Midhurst Secondary Plan Area (“Secondary Plan”) as “Midhurst Low Density Residential”, “Midhurst Transitional Residential” and “Environmental Protection 1”.

5The Subject Property is currently zoned Agricultural (“A”) and Environmental Protection (“EP”) within Zoning By-law No. 5000 (“ZBL”).

6The proposed residential uses are not permitted under the current ZBL. Accordingly, a zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) is required.

7The purpose and effect of the ZBA is to rezone the lands from Agricultural (A) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones to the Urban Residential Exception Holding (UR2-3(H)) Zone, Urban Residential Exception Holding (UR2-XX(H)) Zone, Open Space (OS) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone.

8The following site-specific exceptions are proposed through the Urban Residential Exception Holding (UR2-3(H)) Zone:

a. An encroachment of 1.5 m is permitted into the exterior side-yard for porches and stairs;

b. Minimum lot area - 250 square metres (“m²”) for a single detached dwelling;

c. Minimum lot area - 165 m² for a townhouse dwelling unit; and,

d. The Holding (H) provision shall be lifted upon completion of the following to the satisfaction of the Township:

i. Execution of the Subdivision Agreement, and,

ii. Confirmation that all detailed design, servicing and phasing requirements of the Township have been satisfied.

9The following site-specific exceptions are proposed through the Urban Residential Exception Holding (UR2-XX(H)) Zone:

a. An exterior side-yard setback (minimum) of 6.5 m adjacent to a County road allowance is permitted.

10The proposed draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) proposes a residential community consisting of the following:

a. 63 Single Detached Residential Lots with a 15.3 m minimum lot frontage;

b. 112 Single Detached Residential Lots with 12.2 m minimum lot frontage;

c. 96 Single Detached Residential Lots with 10.4 m minimum lot frontage;

d. 44 Semi-Detached Residential Units;

e. 358 Townhouse Residential Units;

f. Two neighbourhood Park Blocks;

g. One Stormwater Management Pond Block;

h. One Sanitary Pumping Station Block;

i. One Open Space Block;

j. One Environmental Protection Block;

k. One Buffer Block;

l. Two Walk-way Blocks;

m. Six Reserve Blocks;

n. Three Road Widening Blocks; and

o. 16 Streets.

11The following provides an overview of the land uses that surround the Subject Property:

a. To the north, unopened Craig Road which forms part of the Ganaraska Trail system.

b. To the south, draft plan approved lands which are currently under construction with municipal servicing.

c. To the east, vacant agricultural lands.

d. To the west, rural residential dwellings.

12The Applications for the proposed DPS and the proposed ZBA were submitted by the previous owner, and appealed on March 26, 2018, for failure to make a decision within the prescribed timeframes. A first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened on November 26, 2018.

13The revised proposed DPS and revised ZBA were submitted to the Township on December 22, 2022.

14As part of ongoing settlement discussions with the Township and County, the DPS was further revised and a revised draft ZBA was submitted to the Township and County. After further review, circulation to the Township Departments and agencies led to the Proposed ZBA, the Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions that form the basis for this settlement.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

15When considering an appeal of an application to amend a ZBL filed pursuant to s. 34 and an appeal of an application filed pursuant to s. 51 of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform to the A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the ZBA conforms with the official plan(s) in effect.

16In consideration of the statutory requirements, as set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the ZBA, DPS and Conditions represent good planning and are in the public interest.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

17The Tribunal qualified Keith MacKinnon, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning. Mr. MacKinnon provided an affidavit sworn on October 31, 2023, in support of the Settlement Proposal and approval of the proposed ZBA, DPS and Conditions instruments (“Exhibit 1”).

18In addition to Mr. MacKinnon’s affidavit, the following were classified as exhibits for this Hearing:

a. Exhibit 2 - Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment

b. Exhibit 3 – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision

c. Exhibit 4 – Proposed Draft Plan of Conditions

19Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, specifically subsections (e) to (s). Mr. MacKinnon opined that the Settlement Proposal had appropriate regard for these matters.

20Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the Proposed DPS and opined that it has appropriate regard to the requirements and criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act, specifically to health, safety, convenience, accessibility, and the welfare of the present and future inhabitants.

21Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the Proposed Conditions and stated they are reasonable and appropriate, having regard for the nature of the Proposed DPS in accordance with ss. 51(25)(a) - (e) of the Act.

22Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the PPS and opined that the Proposed ZBA, Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions are consistent with the PPS, particularly policies: 1.1.1, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.6, 1.4.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.2, 1.6.6.7, and 1.6.7.2.

23Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the Growth Plan and concluded that the Proposed ZBA, Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions conform with the policies and objectives of the Growth Plan, and in particular policies: 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.6 and 2.2.7.

24Mr. MacKinnon reviewed the County OP and opined that the Proposed ZBA and Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions conform to the County OP.

25Mr. MacKinnon opined that the Proposed ZBA and DPS conform to the Township OP and Secondary Plan. Further, he opined that the proposed ZBA is appropriate to regulate the use and development of the Subject Property and implements the Proposed DPS.

26In conclusion, Mr. MacKinnon proffered that the Proposed ZBA, Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions satisfy the applicable provisions of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, the County OP, Township OP and the Secondary Plan. He opined that the proposed development, as set out in the Proposed ZBA, Proposed DPS and Proposed Conditions constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.

FINDINGS

27Having considered the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. MacKinnon, and his affidavit in support of the Settlement Proposal, and having reviewed the proposed instruments, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate optimization of the Subject Property.

28The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it seeks to sustain a healthy, liveable and safe community through the promotion of growth management strategies that support efficient development and a range of residential uses.

29The Tribunal, in consideration of the Growth Plan, finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. The Subject Property supports the achievement of a complete community, designed to support healthy and active living, while supporting a mix of housing options to make efficient use of land and infrastructure.

30In consideration of the County OP, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal exceeds the density target for greenfield developments in the Township. The minimum density target for greenfield developments is 32 persons and jobs per ha. The Subject Property proposes a density of 54 persons and jobs per ha, conforming to the density policies of the County OP.

31In consideration of the Township OP, the Subject Property is within an existing settlement area and conforms with the general themes of ensuring an adequate supply of servicing for new development and the protection of natural features.

32The Tribunal finds that the ZBA, proposed to facilitate the development, as described in the Settlement Proposal conforms with the OP(s) and Secondary Plan.

33The Tribunal has considered the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and is satisfied that the approval of the ZBA, DPS and Conditions will have regard for such matters as the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, being an appropriate location for growth, promoting a design that efficiently uses infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, being a well-designed built form, and contributing to the range of housing options required to meet the social, health and economic needs of residents to support their well-being, and assisting with the short-term and long-term projected needs of current and future residents.

34In consideration of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal and the requisite ZBA and DPS and Draft Conditions constitute good land use planning and are in the public interest.

35The Tribunal allows the appeals in part.

36The Tribunal may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if some matter should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

ORDER

37The Tribunal orders that the appeal filed by 2513564 Ontario Ltd. pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed, in part, and that the Township of Springwater Zoning By-law No. 5000 is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.

38The Tribunal orders that the appeal filed by 2513564 Ontario Ltd. pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed, in part, and that the Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated September 20, 2023, and attached as Attachment 2, is approved subject to fulfillment of the Conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order and Decision.

39The Tribunal orders that subject to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, the Township of Springwater shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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