Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 02, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001905

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: James Battle

Applicant: Chancery Development Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: Proposed Official Plan Amendment 30

Reference Number: OPA 30

Property Address: 380-396 Ontario Street

Municipality/UT: Stratford/Perth

OLT Case No: OLT-22-001905

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-001905

OLT Case Name: Battle v. Stratford (City.)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: Proposed zoning by-law amendment 151-2021

Reference Number: BL 151-2021

Property Address: 380-396 Ontario Street

Municipality/UT: Stratford/Perth

OLT Case No: OLT-22-001906

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-001905

Heard: October 31, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
James Battle	A. Ciccone
City of Stratford	P. Lombardi
Chancery Development Ltd.	K. Stitt, S. Kagan

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON OCTOBER 31, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was the appeals by James Battle (“Appellant”) from the approval by the City of Stratford (“City”) of the application from Chancery Development Ltd. (“Chancery”) to make amendments to the Official Plan (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law No. 151-2021 (“ZBLA”) pursuant to s. 17(24) and 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).

2The purpose of the OPA and ZBLA applications is to allow Chancery to develop two 3.5 storey stacked townhouse buildings, comprising of 30 dwelling units, for the properties municipally known as 380, 388, 390, and 386 Ontario Street (“Subject Lands”)

EXPERT WITNESSES

3The Tribunal having reviewed the signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duties form, and hearing no concerns from counsel, qualified the following to provide expert opinion evidence in land-use planning:

• Michael Bartion for the Appellant
• Emily Elliot for Chancery
• Andrea Hacler for the City

EXHIBITS

4The following items had been marked as exhibits:

1. Joint Document Book a. Witness Statement of Emily Elliott b. Reply Witness Statement of Emily Elliott
2. Witness Statement of Michael Barton a. Witness Statement of Andrea Hachler b. Acknowledgement of Expert Duties for Andrea Hachler
3. Chancery Visual Evidence
4. Appellant Visual Evidence

BACKGROUND

5The Subject Lands are approximately 3,335 square metres in size, and located on the north side of Ontario Street, a major arterial road1 between Trow Avenue and Queen Street. The Subject Lands comprise of five lots in total.

6In order to facilitate the proposed development, Chancery is seeking and OPA to re-designate the Subject Lands from Residential Area – Special Policy Area 2 to High Density Residential – Special Policy Area 22. In addition to the OPA, Chancery is seeking various ZBLA’s to rezone the Subject Lands to Residential Fourth Density (R4) Zone (“R4”).

7The Subject Lands comprise of 396 Ontario Street at the corner of Ontario and Queen Street, a vacant commercial building that was once a restaurant. The proposed development would allow for the demolition of this building and to rezone the lot from Neighbourhood Commercial (“C1”) to R4.

8Moving to the west, 390 and 388 Ontario Street each contain a two-and-a-half storey single detached dwelling. 380 Ontario Street is a vacant lot.

9Finally, located at the corner of Trow Avenue and Ontario Street is 370 Ontario Street. This lot contains a vacant two-and-a-half storey single detached dwelling that has been used for commercial purposes. 370 Ontario Street was included in the original application to the City but through the consultation process has since been removed. The façade of the proposed development will contain similar features of the existing dwelling on this lot.

10While the Subject Lands are located just outside the City Downtown core, this portion of Ontario Street has a mixture of residential dwellings and commercial uses in the immediate vicinity.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

S. 2 of the Planning Act

11It is the expert opinion of Mr. Barton that the requested OPA and ZBLA applications do not give appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, specifically:

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; and

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development.

12It is Mr. Barton’s opinion that the proposed development does not represent good land-use planning. The OPA and ZBLA applications would allow for the development of a Medium Density Residential built form and High Density Residential density in a community that is characterized as low density with low-rise residential dwellings and commercial built forms.

13In contrast, Ms. Elliott gave the expert opinion that the proposed development does address and give regard to several sections of s. 2 of the Act. The Subject Lands are located on an existing arterial road, serviced with sidewalks on both sides of the street, and contains a public transit bus stop.

14The Subject Lands would contribute to a wider range of housing options by utilizing an underutilized lot in a Built Boundary area, that has access to existing municipal infrastructure.

15The Subject Lands are located in a Heritage Area, on a Heritage Corridor as defined in the OP. Addressing the heritage aspects, Ms. Hachler stated that while the proposed development will be designed in a manner that respects the area architectural features, the Subject Lands does not contain or abut any properties that are included in the City’s Municipal Heritage Register of Non-designated Properties or designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”)

16In the policy analysis of Mr. Barton, he states that the OP supports the PPS policies by implementing the principles of strong communities, healthy environment, and economic growth. The City land use policies protect the provincial interests and Stable Residential Neighbourhoods, by directing development and intensification to suitable areas that include the Downtown Core, Medium Density, and High Density residential areas.

17Mr. Barton informed the Tribunal that the Subject Lands are located within a Low Density Residential built form area. The proposed three-and-a-half storey townhouse development would alter the characteristics of the existing stable neighbourhood both in built form and intensification density. It was the opinion of Mr. Barton that the applications are not consistent with the policies within the PPS because it does not consider the existing building stock as required under the PPS (s 1.1.1.3.) He further stated that the proposed built form does not respect the character of the established neighbourhood as required under PPS (s. 1.7.1 e)).

18The Official Plan (“OP”) directs development to suitable areas for growth and intensification. In the opinion of Mr. Barton, the proposed development will significantly alter and exceed the intensification standards for the Subject Lands.

19It is the expert opinion of Ms. Hachler that the proposed development of the stacked townhouses, promotes efficient intensification of underutilize lands within an urban settlement area, contributes to the mix of available housing units options, has access to public transit, and is supported by current infrastructure with minimal impacts to servicing costs.

20Ms. Hachler stated that the proposed development does increase the density but was satisfied that it is appropriate for the Subject Lands. The Applicant is proposing to provide more parking spaces then required, to exceed the minimum amount of landscape open space required, provide setbacks that exceed the minimum requirements, and is not proposing more than 25% lot coverage.

21Ms. Smith stated that the proposed development is consistent with the policies set out in the PPS. The Subject Lands are within the Built Boundary of the City and are accordingly considered to be located within a Settlement Area as defined in the PPS. As such the proposed development would utilize existing municipal infrastructure, efficiently redevelop and intensify underutilized lands, provide a mix of housing options to the community, and enhance the streetscape.

22The proposed development promotes healthy active communities by providing development that is supported by existing public ground transit, will include sidewalk connections, and provide outdoor amenity space.

City Official Plan

23Mr. Barton stated that OP has been designed by the City to establish the desired development, built form, intensity and character of land use. The guiding principles of the OP encourage development of a complete community while maintaining the community’s heritage and character. Intensification and infill development must respect the existing neighbourhood character, height and built form design. The OP indicates that development must ensure that any intensification is appropriate to the scale and built form which reflects the surrounding area.

24As the Subject Lands are located within an area that has been designated to be a Residential Area and is located in a Mixed Use Special Policy Area – Special Policy Area 2, Mr. Barton informed the Tribunal that the area surrounding the Subject Lands should be characterized as a Stable Residential Neighbourhood and that there are no other properties in the immediate neighbourhood that have been designated Medium Density or High Density Residential. Because of this, Mr. Barton indicates that there would be no transition between the neighbourhoods predominately low-rise residential dwellings and the proposed development. Furthermore, the density of the proposed development would qualify as High Density Residential that is intended to occur in locations which generally respect adjacent development. The townhouse built-form that is being proposed is a permitted Medium Density Residential use within a High Density Residential Area. It was the opinion of Mr. Barton that the proposed development does not meet the criteria to be considered for a new High Density Residential Area development, and that as the Subject Lands are located in a Stable Residential Neighbourhood, that is characterized by a low density built-form, height, lot pattern, setbacks and open space, that is reflected in the existing OP and Zoning By-law designations.

25It is the expert opinion of Mr. Barton, that the proposed development is not compatible with the character, scale and density of the surrounding neighbourhood and the requested OPA and ZBLA do not conform to the existing City OP policies.

26Ms. Elliott stated that the proposed development would contribute to the growth management objectives of the City. The intensification of a settlement area that is located within the City Built Boundary, on an arterial road that is identified as being part of a Mixed-Use Corridor, makes the Subject Lands compatible to the existing neighbourhood.

27As the Subject Lands are located on one of the main arterial roads in the City, it is Ms. Elliott’s belief that the design of the proposed development will consist of architectural features that are sympathetic to the established heritage character of the area. At the same time the proposed development will utilize the subject lots that are currently vacant, have a vacant commercial building, and the two single-detached dwellings, with a high quality designed residential development that would significantly improve the Ontario Street streetscape.

28The utilization of underdeveloped lots, that would efficiently use existing municipal infrastructure, that is supported by existing public transit adjacent to the Subject Lands, that will provide a mix of housing options in a built form that reflects the character of the area, in the opinion of Ms. Elliott is considered good land use planning and appropriately conforms to the objectives of the City OP.

29Ms. Hachler provided the Tribunal with a planning opinion that supported the evidence of Ms. Elliott. Ms. Hachler stated that the proposed development would be compatible in design and scale, appropriately located on an arterial road with existing infrastructure, active transit, and public transit support.

30Addressing the concerns regarding building height, Ms. Hachler proffered the opinion that a minor increase of 0.5 storeys, for a total of 3.5 storeys would not negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood. She further explained that the 21 metre setbacks to the adjacent residential dwelling that are located on the street behind the proposed development are significant enough to offset the minor 0.5 storey height increase.

31In the opinion of Ms. Hachler, the proposed stacked townhouse development maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The site specific provisions would facilitate development that is properly graded, provides landscaping that will contribute to the Ontario Street streetscape, has adequate parking located behind the proposed building with access off of Queen Street, and has an amenity area for residents to use.

32It is the expert opinion of the Ms. Hachler, as the City’s Manager of Planning, that the proposed development conforms with the relevant City OP policies and represents good land use planning.

COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW

33The City has recently approved a new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 10-2022 since the approval of Zoning By-law No. 151-2021 that is the ZBLA being considered before the Tribunal. It is the request of the City and Chancery, that the Tribunal allow in part, the appeal against ZLBA (By-law No. 151-2021) for the purpose of approving the new form of the ZBLA so that it amends the new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 10-2022.

FINDING AND ANALYSIS

34In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Ms. Elliott and Ms. Hachler. The evidence proffered before the Tribunal clearly indicated that throughout the municipally processing of this application, Chancery worked collaboratively with the City, addressing concerns and finding an agreeable final proposed development.

35The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of underutilized lands, intensifies uses within the settlement area, is supported by public transit, contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular is a built form that respects the heritage character of the surrounding area, and in particular contributes to the intensification targets as desired by the City.

36The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised in the appeal of Mr. Battle but was not persuaded that the concerns raised are either sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the proposed development, or otherwise bears relevance to the land use planning merits that the Tribunal would consider the proposal to not be good land-use planning.

37The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the Growth Plan, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.

ORDER

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed and Amendment No. 30 to the Official Plan for the City of Stratford is approved.

39That the Zoning By-law appeal is allowed, in part, and By-law No. 151-2021 is hereby amended in the manner set in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

40Pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order shall be, and was, effective as of the date of the hearing of this Appeal, and the delivery of the Oral Decision and Order of the Tribunal, on Wednesday, November 2, 2022.

41The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE VICE-CHAIR

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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

BY-LAW NUMBER XXX-2022 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF STRATFORD

BEING a By-law to amend By-law 10-2022 as amended, with respect to zone change application Z06-20 to amend the Residential Third Density / Mixed-Use Residential (R3/MUR) and Neighbourhood Commercial (C1) Zone on 380, 388, 390 and 396 Ontario Street located on the north side of Ontario Street between Queen Street and Trow Avenue in the City of Stratford to a Residential Fourth Density (R4(4)) zone with site specific regulations.

WHEREAS the Ontario Land Tribunal deems it desirable to amend the City of Stratford Zoning By-law 10-2022, as amended pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO, 1990

THEREFORE, the Ontario Land Tribunal Enacts the following:

1. That Schedule “A”, Key Map 5 to By-law 10-2022 as amended, is hereby amended:

by changing from Residential Third Density / Mixed-Use Residential (R3/MUR) and Neighbourhood Commercial (C1) to Residential Fourth Density (R4(2)-32) with site specific regulations, those lands outlined in heavy solid lines and described as (R4(2)-32) on Schedule “A”, attached hereto and forming part of this By-law, and more particularly described as Part of Lot 69 Plan 32, Part 1 and Part 2 44R-5403 known municipally as 380, 388, 390 and 396 Ontario Street, Stratford Ontario.

2. That By-law 10-2022 as amended, be further amended by adding to Section 15.4, being Zone Exceptions to the Residential Fourth Density (R4) Zone, the following:

a) Defined Area (380, 388, 390 and 396 Ontario Street) R4(2)-32 as shown on Schedule “A”, Map 5;

b) Permitted uses – Townhouse dwelling, street Townhouse dwelling, cluster Quadraplex dwelling

c) Maximum building height – 14 m

d) Maximum density – 91 units per hectare

e) Maximum number of storeys - 3.5

f) Minimum lot area – 3,000 m²

g) Exterior side yard width – 3 m

h) All other general use regulations in accordance with Table 6.4.4.