Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 09, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002227 (Formerly PL210011)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Jean-Louis Amardeil
Applicant: Alpine Ridge Developments Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To permit the development of seven stacked row townhouses dwellings, each with seven apartment units
Reference Number: D14-09/20
Property Address: Birch Street road allowance, North and South side Birch Street Lots 1-4
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002227
Legacy Case No: PL210011
OLT Case Name: Amardeil v. Bracebridge (Town)
Heard: November 22, 2022 by video conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Jean-Louis Amardeil and BAM Builder Advertising Marketing Inc.
Counsel
Aaron Platt and Samantha Lampert
Parties
Town of Bracebridge
Counsel
Harold G. Elston
DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement Hearing respecting an appeal by Jean-Louis Armadeil and BAM Builder Advertising Marketing Inc. (collectively, the “Appellants”) regarding the decision by the Council of the Town of Bracebridge (“Town”) to refuse an application for a Zoning By-law amendment respecting the lands legally described as Lots 1-4, Plan 15, on the south side of Birch Street. The Appellants requested a Zoning By-law Amendment to Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2016-088 from existing Residential Type (R1) to Residential Type 4 Special – 38 (R4 – 38) which would allow for the creation of thirty-six (36) row townhouse dwellings. The subject property is known in the Town as Birch Street road allowance, North and South side Birch Street Lots 1-4. For reference purposes, Birch Street is a proposed new street originating from Woodward Street and running East-West into the proposed development. Birch Street will provide access to the dwelling unit blocks which will be oriented relatively in the North-South direction (see Exhibit 1, page 64).
2The settlement was reached between the Town and the Appellants and the only other party opposing the proposed development, David Royston withdrew his continuation as a party.
SETTLEMENT EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
3The Town and the Appellants filed evidence as follows:
a. Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book
4The Tribunal affirmed Jamie Robinson, and having reviewed the acknowledgement of expert’s duties, his Curriculum Vitae qualified Mr. Robinson to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
5Mr. Robinson provided the site context for the subject property and as well description of its proposed development. Mr. Robinson stated that the proposal contemplated by the Amended Application (the “Proposal”) involves the construction of 36 townhouse units with an entrance from Woodward Street. A plan of condominium has not yet been applied for, but it is intended that the Proposal will be a common element condominium with fee simple ownership of the units tied to common elements (roadways and services). Surrounding land uses include low density residential uses to the west, low density residential uses to the north, low density residential uses to the south, medium and high density residential uses to the northeast and an institutional use (paramedic and fire station) are located to the east. He further referred to detailed information in Exhibit 1, Appendix C as to site plan level information for the development.
6Mr. Robinson reviewed the regard for provincial interest as required under s. 2 of the Planning Act. Mr. Robinson reviewed subsections (a), j), p) and r)) in that the proposal does not impinge on any natural features; it adds a new form of housing available in the Town in the form of Townhomes; the development is infill and is located in a settlement area of the Town, namely an “Urban Centre”; and is well designed with public space, vegetation opportunities and meets the medium density requirements. Mr. Robinson in conclusion opined that the proposed ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act.
7Mr. Robinson assessed consistency of the proposal with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”). He reviewed this in the context of original Issues List number two which stated:
Issue Two: Is the proposed ZBA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (the “PPS”)? In particular, Policies: 1.1.1 c) and g); 1.1.3.2 b); 1.1.3.4; 1.6.1; 1.6.6.1 a), b) and d); 1.6.6.7 a) to f); 1.6.8.1
8Mr. Robinson’s evidence is documented in a comprehensive way and is included in his witness statement (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, pages 15-20). In conclusion, Mr. Robinson opined that the proposal is consistent with PPS 2020.
9Mr. Robinson assessed the proposal with respect to conformity with the District of Muskoka Official Plan (the “DOP”). This analysis was in the context of issue number 3 which states:
Issue Three: Does the proposed ZBA conform with the policies of the Official Plan of the District of Muskoka (the “DOP”)? In particular, Policies C4 (stormwater management); D13 (new development in growth areas); and D15 (servicing).
10Mr. Robinson reviewed this in the context of his witness statement (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, pages 21-28). Based on his analysis and the reports and opinions of appropriate other experts, Mr. Robinson stated that, “it is my professional opinion that the proposed ZBA conforms with the District of Muskoka Official Plan”.
11Mr. Robinson provided evidence based on his witness statement regarding the conformity of the ZBA with the Town Official Plan (the “TOP”). This was done in the context of the following issue description:
Issue Four: Does the proposed ZBA conform with the policies of the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan (the “BOP”)? In particular, Policies: A7.8.2.3 (character); A7.8.2.4 (servicing); B15.0, B15.2 and B15.3 (compatibility); and C2.1.9, C2.2.1, C2.2.2 (intensification and infilling) and C2.3.1 (medium density and high density development).
12Mr. Robinson’s detailed evidence is included in his witness statement (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, pages 29-39). Mr. Robinson concluded that based on his planning analysis and relying upon the reports of appropriate experts, the proposal conforms with the TOP.
13Mr. Robinson also duly addressed other miscellaneous issues regarding easements and additional concerns or appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that negative impacts of stormwater were mitigated.
14Mr. Robinson having considered and shown that the proposal has due regards and appropriate consistency and conformity with PPS 2020 and the plans, that the proposal represents good land use planning.
15The Tribunal having regard for the material that was with the approval authority when it made its decision, the record on file and the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Mr. Robinson finds that the ZBA has appropriate regard for matter of provincial interest as required under the Planning Act, is consistent with PPS 2020, and conforms with the DOP and TOP and represents good land use planning.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, and By-Law No. 2016-88 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.
17Pursuant 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 November 22, 2022.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
APPROVED ZONING BY-LAW EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 22, 2022
BY-LAW NO. 2022 -
A BY-LAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE TO AMEND BY-LAW 2016-088, A LAND USE CONTROL BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE USE OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE
WHEREAS By-law No. 2016-088 was enacted to regulate land use in Bracebridge Ward, of the Town of Bracebridge, in the District Municipality of Muskoka.
AND WHEREAS it is deemed necessary to amend the said by-law by rezoning certain lands and by the addition of certain provisions;
AND WHEREAS as directed by the Ontario Land Tribunal following the hearing of an appeal by the applicant the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge deems it expedient to pass such a by-law;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
That Schedule “A” to By-law No. 2016-088 is hereby amended by rezoning the property described as Lots 1 to 4 north side of Birch Street and Lots 1 to 4 south side of Birch Street, Plan 15, Bracebridge Ward, Town of Bracebridge from the present zone of Residential Type 4 (R4) to Residential Type 4 Special – 38 (R4-38) Holding, which lands are more particularly outlined in red on Schedule “A” attached hereto.
That Section 7.1.1: Residential Zone Exceptions is hereby amended by the addition of the following:
Zone Permitted Uses
R4-38H In a Residential Type 4 Special – 38 (R4-38) Holding Zone, the permitted uses would be limited to the existing uses only until such time as the Holding (H) Symbol is removed by by-law, at which time, the permitted uses would be limited to Row Dwellings, with multiple Row Dwellings permitted on one lot, subject to the following provisions:
(i) The minimum lot frontage shall be 20.0 metres (65.6 feet);
(ii) The minimum lot area shall be 0.9 hectares (2.22 acres);
(iii) The maximum number of Row Dwellings shall be 36;
(iv) The minimum setback from the west lot line shall be 7.3 metres (24 feet);
(v) The minimum setback from the north lot line shall be 9.3 metres (30.5 feet);
(vi) The minimum setback from the east lot line shall be 5.8 metres (19 feet);
(vii) The minimum setback from the south lot line shall be 9.3 metres (30.5 feet);
(viii) A minimum of 8 visitor parking spaces shall be provided;
(ix) A minimum of 500 square metres (5,382 square feet) of amenity space shall be provided;
(x) Driveway parking spaces shall have a minimum length of 6 metres (19.7 feet); and
(xi) The Holding (H) Symbol may be removed once confirmation has been received from the District Municipality of Muskoka that the developer has entered into an agreement with the District Municipality of Muskoka to address the provision of municipal water and sewer services, infrastructure upgrades, capacity allocation, easements, and the disposal of solid waste.
All other applicable provisions of the Residential Type 4 (R4) Zone shall continue to apply in respect to the lands located within the Residential Type 4 Special – 38 Holding (R4-38H) Zone.
That Schedule "A" attached hereto forms part of this by-law.
That this By-law shall take effect on the date of passage by Council and shall come into force in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990.
THE PASSING OF THIS BY-LAW DIRECTED BY THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL AND FINALLY PASSED THIS ____ DAY OF _____ 2022.
Mayor, Graydon Smith Director of Corporate Services/
Clerk, Lori McDonald