Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 10, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002887
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
Tahany Lafta & Saad Thammer
Applicant
Thunder Road Developments (2019) Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Reference Number:
OPA 272
Property Address:
5368 Boundary Rd. 6150 Thunder Road
Municipality/UT:
Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-002887
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002887
OLT Case Name:
Lafta v Ottawa (city)
Heard:
September 15, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/ Representative*
Tahany Lafta & Saad Thammer
F. Hassan
Thunder Road Developments (2019) Inc.
*P. Osterhout
City of Ottawa
*K. Libman / *T. Marc
DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The Tribunal heard the subject site is composed of two contiguous parcels totaling 17.75 hectare (“ha”) located in the City of Ottawa (“City”) approximately 2.5 kilometres (“km”) south of the Village of Carlsbad Springs at the intersection of Boundary and Thunder Roads.
2The subject site is bounded: to the north by four rural residential properties and Highway 417; to the south by a mix of residential and rural industrial properties; to the east by a large Amazon warehouse facility; and to the west by a large natural area composed of woodlands and wetlands.
3Thunder Road Developments (2019) Inc. (“Applicant”) is intending to develop a light industrial warehousing facility on the subject site. As required by the City planning staff, a concept plan was prepared by the applicant to illustrate how such a facility can be accommodated on the subject site.
4The concept plan divides the site into three distinct areas, namely:
Area 1, fronting onto Thunder Road and composed of four industrial warehouse buildings, associated parking, loading and unloading facilities, and a stormwater management pond.
Area 2, also fronting onto Thunder Road and composed of a single industrial warehouse and associated parking, loading and unloading facilities.
Area 3, fronting onto Boundary Road, and composed of a single industrial warehouse and associated parking, loading and unloading facilities.
5The proposed development is intended to be serviced by the municipal drinking water system (known as the Carlsbad Public Service Area) and private individual on-site sewage systems, a servicing arrangement commonly known as “partial servicing”.
6The Tribunal heard, to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant has made three applications under the Planning Act (“Act”). The first being an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application to change the land use designation on the subject site from “General Rural Area” to “Rural Employment Area”, which was approved by the City of Ottawa and subsequently appealed by the appellant.
7The second being a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) application to change the zoning on the subject site from “Rural Countryside (RU) Zone” to “Rural General Industrial (RG) Zone”, which was approved by the City of Ottawa but was not appealed.
8The third being a site plan control application, which is mandated by the City’s Site Plan Control By-law (No. 2014-256). The site plan control application is currently being held in abeyance pending the outcome of this hearing.
9A pre-consultation for the OPA and ZBLA applications was hosted by the City on December 9, 2019. Formal application was made on December 17, 2020 and the applications were “deemed complete” by the City on January 26, 2021.
10The Tribunal was informed both the OPA and ZBLA applications proceeded through a standard, iterative development review process with the City.
11Addendums were issued to some of the supporting studies and plans including a Planning Rationale. The City requested a more detailed analysis of land use compatibility using the Province’s “Guideline D-6: Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities”.
12The Tribunal heard that after the internal review of the OPA and ZBLA applications, city staff advised that they were in a position to support the proposed OPA to change the land use designation as requested in the applicant’s OPA application.
13The ZBLA application, however, was subject to further discussion between the Applicant and city staff, resulting in two site-specific provisions in response to technical comments:
the first being a restriction on the types of land uses permitted on the subject site to remove permitted land uses that have the potential to create land use compatibility issues between the proposed development and adjacent residential uses to the north;
the second being an increase in the minimum setback between an industrial use and a residential use, to mitigate against potential land use compatibility issues between the proposed development and adjacent residential uses to the north, being the Appellant’s property.
14A public hearing for the subject applications was held on February 3, 2022, before the City’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee and subsequently approved by Council on February 9, 2022.
15On March 15, 2022, the City of Ottawa Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department received a notice of appeal under Section 17(24) of the Act in respect of the above noted OPA from Saad Thammer.
APPELLANT’s EVIDENCE
16The Tribunal heard that Mr. Thammer and Tahany Lafta (“Appellants”) would not be providing any professional witness’ or evidence.
17Fares Hassan, representing the Appellants, submitted that Mr. Saad Thamer along with his neighbour, Ms. Lafta being his sister in law, live adjacent to 6150 Thunder Road at 6130 and 6140 Thunder Road. Each family supports four children. The families chose to live in this area in order to raise their children away from the noise and pollution of the city.
18The Tribunal heard the Appellant’s are only appealing the rezoning of 6150 Thunder Rd. The proposed rezoning will allow heavy equipment and large trucks to enter and exit to the site immediately next door to their homes.
19The Tribunal further heard that Thunder Road is a non-truck and industrial vehicles route. The Tribunal heard that the rezoning will increase truck traffic on the road, leading to increased hazards.
20The Appellants stressed that their children make daily trips to the local gas station, as it is the only convenience store close enough to walk to, where they can go to buy “treats and snacks”. It is of the utmost importance that the road is not made unsafe and dangerous for their children to travel on.
21The Appellants submitted that they have gone through major hardships and illness, and that the added stress from the traffic caused by the Amazon site, located approximately one kilometre away from their homes, further adds to the anxiety.
22The Appellant concluded that the proposed site project that will be only twenty meters away from their homes and will certainly adversely affect them. Selling their homes is not an option for them.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
23The Tribunal was presented with Paul Hicks, a registered professional planner and the President of Re: public Urbanism, an urban planning consultancy specializing in urban planning and design.
24The Tribunal qualified and affirmed Mr. Hicks to provide expert land use planning and urban design evidence.
25Mr. Hicks provided to the Tribunal that he would address the following questions:
Is the subject official plan amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”)?
Does the subject OPA otherwise conform to the general philosophy and intent of the OP of the City?
Does the subject OPA constitute good planning?
PLANNING ANALYSIS
Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS)
26The PPS is the Province of Ontario’s statement of land use policy and provides policy direction on land use planning and development matters of provincial interest. The authority of the PPS is established in Section 3 of the Act, which requires that all land use planning decisions made in Ontario “be consistent” with the relevant policies of the PPS.
27Mr. Hicks submitted he reviewed and assessed the subject applications based on the relevant section of the PPS listed below:
- Section 1.1.1 speaks to how healthy, livable, and safe communities are to be sustained in Ontario.
28Section 1.1.2 requires that planning authorities maintain a sufficient inventory of land to accommodate land uses.
Section 1.1.4.1 speaks to how healthy, integrated, and viable rural areas will be supported.
Sections 1.1.5.4. and 1.1.5.5 states that development in rural areas is to be compatible with the rural landscape and sustained by rural service levels and not place undue burden on the infrastructure and / or infrastructure needs. To address the servicing policies of these sections, a Functional Servicing Report was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 1.3.1 outlines how planning authorities will promote economic development and competitiveness.
Section 1.3.2.6 states that planning authorities shall protect employment areas in proximity to major goods movement facilities and corridors for employment uses that require these locations.
Section 1.6.6 establishes provincial policies as they relate to sewage, water, and stormwater servicing. Notably subsection 1.6.6.5 outlines the circumstances under which “partial servicing” is to be permitted. Further subsection 1.6.6.7 outlines how stormwater is to be managed. To address the servicing policies of this section, a Functional Servicing Report was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Sections 1.6.8.2 and 1.6.8.3 states that new development proposed adjacent to planning corridors and transportation facilities should be compatible and supportive of the long-term purposes of the corridors.
Section 1.7.1 states that long term economic prosperity should be supported by promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness.
Section 1.8.1 states that planning authorities will support sustainability and climate-change objectives through land use and development patterns which focus freight-intensive uses to areas well-serviced by regional and international transportation corridors and facilities.
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 establish policies for development adjacent to natural heritage features as well as the protection of water. To address these policies, an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 2.6 requires that planning authorities conserve and protect cultural heritage resources. To address these policies, a Stage I Archaeological Assessment was completed by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 3.2 establishes policies to reduce the cost and risk from human-made hazards (i.e. contamination and contaminated sites). To address these policies, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments were completed by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
29Mr. Hicks provided, based on the review of the relevant sections of the PPS and the supporting materials prepared for the subject applications, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the policies of the PPS as required by the Act.
City of Ottawa Official Plan (OP)
30The OP is the City’s spatial and policy framework that directs the physical growth of the City’s urban and rural areas. The authority of the OP is established in Section 17 of the Act and requires that all land use planning decisions made by the City “conform to” the land use schedules and policies of the OP.
31Mr. Hick’s submitted he reviewed and assessed the proposed applications based on the relevant sections of the OP that are outlined below:
Section 2 of the OP outlines the strategic directions the City will pursue to achieve to meet their planning objectives.
Section 2.3.1(43) states that the City will preserve strategic locations with superior access to transportation facilities and corridors for industrial and transportation uses that require these facilities and corridors.
Section 2.3.2(11) states that applications for a zoning by-law amendment in the Carlsbad Public Service Area must be accompanied by an assessment of the residual capacity of the whole [drinking water] system. To address the servicing policies of this section, a Functional Servicing Report and was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks.
Section 2.3.2(14) states that where public servicing does not exist, the City may permit development on private services and the conditions under which they can be considered. To address the servicing policies of this section, a Functional Servicing Report was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks.
Section 2.3.3(1) states that development serviced by public servicing will only be permitted if there is capacity in the system to support it. To address this requirement, a Functional Servicing Report and was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr.Hicks.
Section 2.4.2(3) states that environmental impact statements are required to be completed for development proposed in close proximity to natural heritage features and areas, to demonstrate that any proposed development will not negatively impact the said feature. To address these policies, an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks.
Section 3.7.5 outlines the land use policies for lands designated “Rural Employment Area”. The subject OPA seeks to change the current land use designation of the land to “Rural Employment Area”. Notably, Subsection 2(b) outlines the types of uses permitted in the “Rural Employment Area” designation and Subsection 4 outlines the servicing policies of the said designation.
Section 4.2 outlines the policies respecting adjacent land use designations and potential triggers for further investigations and analysis, as in this case, in which the subject site would be located adjacent to a different land use designation than the one proposed for the site.
Section 4.3 outlines the policies with respect to walking, cycling, transit, roads, and parking lots. To address these policies, a Transportation Impact Assessment: Screening and Scoping Report and Forecasting Report was prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 4.4 outlines the policies with respect to water and wastewater servicing. Notably, Subsection 4.4.2(1) states that where development is proposed on private wastewater servicing, as is the case with the subject development, the City requires sufficient information to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely impact neighbouring properties. To address this requirement, a Functional Servicing Report was completed by a qualified engineer and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 4.6.2 outlines the policies respecting cultural heritage resources. Notably, Subsection 2 states that the City will determine whether there is archaeological potential on any given development site. To address these policies, a Stage I Archaeological Assessment was completed by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 4.7.3 requires the protection of rivers, streams, lakes, and other surface water features on any given site and Section 4.7.8 states that environmental impact statements are required to be completed for development proposed in close proximity to natural heritage features and areas, to demonstrate that any proposed development will not negatively impact the said feature. To address these policies, an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
Section 4.8.4 outlines the City’s policies respecting contaminated sites and the protection of public health and safety. To address these policies, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments were completed by a qualified professional and reviewed and assessed by Mr. Hicks, as well as the City.
32Mr. Hicks provided, based on the review of the relevant sections of the OP and the supporting materials prepared for the subject applications, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA otherwise conforms to the general philosophy and intent of the OP of the City.
Urban Design Brief
33Mr. Hicks provided that a Design Brief is an analysis that illustrates how a proposed development is designed to work with its existing and planned context, to improve its surroundings and demonstrate how a proposal supports the overall goals of the OP, approved plans and design guidelines. Section 2.5.1 of the OP outlines the City’s policies as they relate to urban design and Section 5.2.6 establishes the general authority for the City to require the submission of a ‘design brief’.
34As part of the complete submission requirements of the City, an urban design brief was prepared and submitted by Mr. Hicks.
35Mr. Hicks provided that Section 2.5.1 of the OP outlines seven urban design objectives under which the proposal was evaluated and Section 4.11 of the OP establishes the policies respecting city-wide urban design and compatibility including: building design; massing and scale; outdoor amenity; and views.
36Mr. Hicks provided, based on the review of the relevant sections of the OP and the supporting materials prepared for the subject applications, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA conforms to the OP of the City.
Guideline D-6: Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities
37Mr. Hicks provided that the D-6 Guideline is an implementation guideline produced by the Province of Ontario to prevent or minimize the encroachment of sensitive land use upon industrial land use and vice versa, as these two types of land uses can be considered incompatible due to possible adverse effects on sensitive land use created by industrial operations. The D-6 Guideline 8 was last prepared and updated by the Province in 1995. As a guideline, mandatory compliance with the D-6 Guideline is not required, but rather, as stated in the guideline itself, the guideline “encourages informed decision-making” for planning authorities.
38The City’s OP does not require an analysis of the D-6 Guideline for employment area land use applications within the rural area of the City, however city staff requested the applicant undertake an analysis of the proposed development against the guidance identified in the D-6 Guideline.
39This analysis was three-part:
the proposed development was classified based on the classes of development outlined in the D-6 Guideline;
second, adjacent sensitive land uses (or “residential receptors”) were identified; and
a planning analysis of the area and applicability of the guidelines was undertaken.
40Mr. Hicks further noted a key component of implementing the D-6 Guideline is determining which industrial class the proposed development falls under. The D6 Guideline outlines three classes of industrial development, with Class I having the least potential impact and Class III having the most potential impact. With each class there is an increasing “recommended minimum separation distance” and increasing “potential influence area” reflecting the increasing potential impact of each class as follows:
Industrial Classification
Recommended Minimum Separation Distance
Potential Influence Area
Class I
20 metres
70 metres
Class II
70 metres
300 metres
Class III
300 metres
1000 metres
41Mr. Hicks provided that he initially classed the proposal as falling into the category of a Class II industry, given the range of uses permitted in the proposed “Rural General Industrial (RG) Zone.”
42Mr. Hicks further provided, the ZBLA was subsequently scoped in response to technical comments in order to remove certain industrial uses typically permitted by the general RG Zone, but not proposed on the subject site.
43The uses removed from the proposed zoning included those uses that contributed to his classification of the proposed development as a Class II industry, and without the possibility of those uses being established on the subject site, Mr. Hicks opined that the proposed development is more appropriately classified as Class I under the D-6 Guideline.
44The Tribunal heard that under the City’s Zoning By-law (“ZBL”), development in the RG Zone is required to be setback 8 metres (“m”) from a lot line abutting an RU Zone (the current zoning of the Appellant’s property). In discussions with city staff, it was agreed that a 10 m setback, with a 5 m landscaped buffer, be incorporated into the proposed ZBLA in order to mitigate against possible negative impacts on the Appellant’s property. When coupled with the RU Zone’s required 5 m setback, the proposed development would be setback a total of 15 m from any proposed residential buildings in the adjacent RU Zone.
45Mr. Hicks further provided that it should be noted that the existing residence on the Appellant’s property is setback approximately 10-12 m from the shared lot line, thus providing an actual total setback of 20-22 m between uses.
46Mr. Hicks concluded, based on his review and analysis of the D-6 Guideline as it relates to the proposed development, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the Province’s D-6 Guideline.
Ministry of Transportation Freight Supportive Guidelines The Freight
47The Tribunal heard Supportive Guidelines are prepared by the Province to assist in creating safe, and efficient freight-supportive communities. The guidelines are intended to: provide direction for land use planning, site design practices and operational procedures that help with the movement of freight; assist municipalities in understanding and planning for the various modes and types of vehicles used in the movement of freight; and support the overall economic health and competitiveness of Ontario’s municipalities. As a guideline, mandatory compliance is not required, but rather as stated in the guideline itself, the guidelines “represent advice to be used at the discretion of municipalities and do not represent formal statements of provincial policy”.
Guideline 2.2.1 states that municipalities in Ontario should link freight movement needs and the municipality’s employment land needs.
Guideline 3.1 outlines the design elements that are common for all freight sites and addresses a number of site-specific topics such as site access, loading, and garbage facilities.
Guideline 3.2 outlines the design elements for industrial sites and addresses a number of site-specific topics such as: loading areas, staging areas, truck access, landscaping and buffering, height and security considerations.
Guideline 3.10 outlines the design elements for rural sites, and is generally focused on maintaining rural character, appropriate setbacks, and use of landscaping and buffering.
48Mr. Hicks concluded, based on his review and analysis of the Province’s Freight Supportive Guidelines, as it relates to the proposed development, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the Guidelines.
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (ZBL)
49The Tribunal heard, the ZBL is the City’s primary regulation as it relates to land use. The authority of the ZBL is established in Section 34 of the Act. The ZBL establishes zones for all lands within the City and accompanying regulation of land use within each zone. All proposed development within the City must comply with the zones and associated regulations contained within the by-law.
50Mr. Hicks provided that the applicant has applied for an amendment to the ZBL to accommodate their proposed development.
51The proposed amendment to the ZBL would change the zoning on the subject lands from “Rural Countryside (RU) Zone” to “Rural General Industrial (RG) Zone”. Further, as noted previously, site-specific provisions of the proposed RG Zoning were drafted in collaboration with the City that would remove several permitted uses in the RG Zone and introduce a greater setback requirement from the adjacent residential property to the north. All other minimum performance standards of the RG Zone are either met or exceeded.
52Mr. Hicks concluded, based on the analysis, it is his opinion that the ZBLA appropriately implements the proposed OPA that is at issue before the Tribunal.
PLANNING OPINION
- Is the subject OPA consistent with the PPS?
53Mr. Hicks provided, based on the review of the relevant sections of the PPS and the supporting materials prepared for the subject applications, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the policies of the PPS, as required by the Act, as the OPA:
Supports the Province’s overall land use, development pattern, and land use compatibility policies
Ensures a sufficient inventory of designated employment lands in the City by providing additional employment lands at a strategic highway interchange
Supports appropriate rural development that is compatible with the rural landscape and servicing levels
Promotes economic development and competitiveness by providing additional employment lands at a strategic highway interchange
Proposes logistics-related industrial development along a major goods movement corridor
Respects the hierarchy of servicing as described in the PPS
Proposes development that is compatible with and supportive of the long-term purposes of the Highway 417 corridor
Promotes investment-readiness by providing shovel-ready zoned and serviced employment lands
Supports sustainability and climate change objectives by locating freight-intensive uses to areas well-serviced by regional and international transportation corridors
Does not negatively impact cultural or natural heritage resources
Does not propose development on human-made hazards
54Mr. Hicks further provided, based on his review and analysis of the D-6 Guideline as it relates to the proposed development, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the Province’s D-6 Guideline as:
The proposed development will be restricted to Class I industrial uses through the implementing of the ZBL approved by Council
The implementing of the ZBL will require a 10 m setback from the lot line abutting the Appellant’s property, 5 m of which will be composed of a landscaped buffer
The actual separation distance between the proposed development and the nearest adjacent residence will be between 20 to 22 m, which is in keeping with the recommended separation distance of the D-6 Guideline
The City’s mandated site plan control process can introduce further buffering measures as required to ensure land use compatibility is achieved
55Mr. Hicks offered, that based on his review and analysis of the Province’s Freight Supportive Guidelines, as it relates to the proposed development, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA is consistent with the Guidelines as:
The proposed development supports the Guideline’s objectives of locating freight intensive uses in employment areas that are well serviced by transportation corridors
The demonstration plan submitted with the OPA has been able to demonstrate the proposed development can be designed in accordance with guidelines
- Does the subject OPA otherwise conform to the general philosophy and intent of the OP of the City?
56Mr. Hicks informed the Tribunal, based on the review of the relevant sections of the City’s OP and the supporting materials prepared for the subject applications, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA otherwise conforms to the policies of the OP, as required by the Act, as the OPA:
Supports the City’s strategic planning directions as outlined in the OP
Preserves strategic locations with superior access to transportation corridors for uses that require the corridors
Has demonstrated that there is sufficient residual capacity in the Carlsbad Public Service Area to supply drinking water to the proposed development
Has demonstrated that is it appropriate to permit the development of private individual on-site sewage services
Has demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on cultural or natural heritage resources
Complies with the purpose and intent of the “Rural Employment Area” designation
Has demonstrated that it will not negatively impact traffic or transportation
Has demonstrated that the proposed on-site servicing will not adversely impact neighbouring properties
Does not propose development on human-made hazards
57Mr. Hicks further provided, based on the review of the relevant sections of the City’s OP and his urban design analysis contained within the submitted Urban Design Brief, it is his professional planning opinion that the subject OPA conforms to the requirements of the OP related to urban design, as required by the Act, as the OPA addresses all policies related to: building design; massing and scale; outdoor amenity; and views contained within the OP.
- Does the subject OPA constitute good planning?
58Mr. Hicks opined, based on his review and analysis of the subject OPA application, the submission constitutes good planning as it meets all statutory, policy, and design requirements of the Province of Ontario and the City.
59Mr. Hicks further opined that the approved implementing ZBLA for the proposed development contains sufficient restrictions and performance standards to ensure that the proposed development will be appropriately located and sited.
60Mr. Hicks provided that the City’s mandated site plan control process can adequately address any site-specific matters, including the design and location of buffering, landscaping, fencing, signage and entrances ways to ensure that the proposed development is appropriately developed.
61Mr. Hicks concluded that it is his opinion that the proposed OPA is consistent with PPS, conforms with the general purpose and intent of the OP, constitutes good land use planning and should therefore be approved.
CITY EVIDENCE
62The Tribunal was presented with Anissa McAlpine, a registered professional planner within the Parks and Facilities Planning Department for the City of Ottawa.
63The Tribunal qualified and affirmed Ms. McAlpine to provide expert land use planning.
64Ms. McAlpine informed the Tribunal that planning staff recommended the approval of the OPA and ZBLA for 5368 Boundary Road/ 6150 Thunder Road.
65The Tribunal further heard that the OPA and ZBLA align with applicable policies of the existing OP for this area, including:
Section 2.2.3 City Wide Employment Area Policies
Section 2.3.1.43 Transportation
Section 2.3.2.11 Water and Wastewater Services
Section 2.4.2 Natural Features and Functions
Section 3.7.5 rural Employment Area
66Ms. McAlpine further provided that the proposal is consistent with the 2020 PPS, specifically that the application is consistent with the employment area policies while addressing compatibility with adjacent sensitive uses and meeting the requirements of the provincial D-Series Guidelines for land use compatibility.
67Ms. McAlpine opined that the proposal meets the intent of these OP policies and is consistent with the OP.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
68The Tribunal must carefully consider the evidence of the witnesses and the submissions of counsel and the Appellant.
69After further analysis, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should be dismissed.
70The evidence of Mr. Hicks and Ms. McAlpine, both professionals in their field, was uncontroverted and their evidence and conclusions are accepted by the Tribunal.
71While the Tribunal respects the determination of the Appellants presenting a genuine concern for the benefit of their families, they have not presented any planning evidence upon which the Tribunal could rely to allow the appeal.
72The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Hicks and Ms. McAlpine and finds that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS 2020 and conforms with in-force City OP policies.
ORDER
73THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act is dismissed and Official Plan Amendment No. 272 for the City of Ottawa is hereby approved.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.