Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 23, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004475
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Docasa Group Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number: Z.1317.06
Property Address: 160 Burnhamthorpe Road W
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004475
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004475
OLT Case Name: Docasa Group Ltd. v Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Reference Number: 24-T-21004/137
Property Address: 160 Burnhamthorpe Road W
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004476
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004475
Heard: March 2, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Docasa Group Ltd. | Patrick J. Harrington |
| Town of Oakville | Jennifer Huctwith |
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND K.R. ANDREWS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter is before the Tribunal in respect of appeals brought by Docasa Group Ltd. (“Applicant”), following the failure of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) to render a decision respecting applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) (together the “Applications”). The appeals are brought pursuant to s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) respectively.
2The present hearing had originally been scheduled as a Case Management Conference but was converted into a settlement hearing when the parties came to an agreement on all outstanding issues (“Proposed Settlement”). The Proposed Settlement is now before the Tribunal for approval.
3The uncontested evidence in support of the Proposed Settlement was provided by Ms. Lindsay Dale-Harris, retained by the Applicant, who was qualified as an expert in land use planning. Ms. Dale-Harris’ written evidence, in the form of an Affidavit sworn February 13, 2023, including various attachments, was marked as Exhibit 1.
4The Affidavit of Service regarding the Notice of Hearing was also confirmed at the start of the Hearing, and no other Party or Participant requests were received prior to or in advance of the Hearing.
5It was noted that Counsel for the Region of Halton (“Region”) had previously corresponded with the Tribunal, and that because of the Proposed Settlement, the Region was no longer seeking Party Status and did not attend at the Hearing.
6No further concerns, objections or correspondence was submitted by the public following the circulation of the Notice of Hearing.
SETTLEMENT
7The Parties jointly seek approval by the Tribunal of the following instruments under the Planning Act on a site-specific basis for the lands municipally known as 160 Burnhamthorpe Road West (the “Subject Site”):
(a) A Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”);
(b) A Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”); and
(c) Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval Conditions (“Draft Plan Conditions”).
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
8Although this was a settlement hearing, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the Applications meet all legislative tests. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications: (a) have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act; (b) are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); (c) conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”); (d) conform to the Region of Halton Official Plan (“Regional OP”); and, (e) conform to the Town’s Official Plan and other relevant plans. In addition to this, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the DPS application has regard to the criteria set out at s. 51(24) of the Act.
9Ms. Dale-Harris testified that in her professional opinion, the Applications met all of the legislative tests.
10For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal accepts this evidence and finds same.
11Ms. Dale-Harris testified that the proposed development Applications were originally completed and filed in June 2021, and subsequently were the subject of a public meeting in September 2021, ultimately appearing before Town Council (“Council”) on September 6, 2022, where the Applications were deferred by Council on the basis that a parking strategy report was required.
12Ms. Dale-Harris further testified that Town planning submitted a comprehensive report to Council with a recommendation to approve the Applications in August 2022, accompanied with the requisite draft ZBA and DPS. The ZBA and DPS documents are identical to those submitted at the present settlement hearing for the review and approval of the Tribunal.
PPS 2020
13Ms. Dale-Harris testified that the development would permit an assortment of lot sizes, with public street access, parkland, school property tied in with Mattamy Homes’ neighbouring development plan, and will offer a combination of townhomes, semi-detached and detached homes, along with some higher density buildings. Additionally, the proposed land use itself does not require an amendment to the Town’s Official Plan and is consistent with the provincial policy regime objectives.
Growth Plan
14Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the development supports the achievement of complete communities designed to support healthy and active living and meets the residents’ needs for future daily living. The development is near community and commercial hubs, making efficient use of land and infrastructure and directs growth to a settlement area that is needed in the north end of the Town. Details were referenced in Exhibit 1 (paragraphs 40-44, and 45-53).
Regional OP
15Ms. Dale-Harris further opined that the development proposal met the intent and objectives of the Region’s OP and referenced these elements in her Affidavit (Exhibit1, paragraph 49). It was also evident that the Region agreed with the proposed ZBA and DPS, given that it opted to rescind its anticipated Party Status request of the Tribunal.
Town OP and Other Plans
16Ms. Dale-Harris further opined that the development proposal met the intent and objectives of the Town’s OP and North Oakville East Secondary Plan (“NOESP”) in particular. Ms. Dale-Harris noted that, other than Schedule A1 Urban Structure, the policies of Town’s OP do not apply to lands within the NOESP. Accordingly, conformity with the relevant policies of the NOESP must be demonstrated. Development under the purview of the NOESP is premised on a sustainable, design first philosophy which seeks to protect the natural environment, supports mixed use development, and provides a modified grid road system that encourages active transportation and transit usage.
17Furthermore, Ms. Dale-Harris noted that the NOESP was amended by OPA 321 which revises the policies of the NOESP to provide for a range of medium density and mixed uses as well as limited commercial uses and civic uses to serve the neighbourhood residents. OPA 321 addressed this by revising the policies and providing for a range of medium density and mixed uses as well as limited commercial uses and civic uses to serve the neighbourhood residents. Detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings were no longer permitted in the Medium Density designation and apartments were included as a permitted building type. An additional policy was added to require that there be a minimum of one mixed use or non-residential building at the intersection of each node (Section 7.6.7.1 a-c).
18Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the proposed ZBA and DPS conform with the NOESP, as amended by OPA 321, as they provide for a density of development and a type of housing supported by neighbourhood commercial development, contemplated in the NOESP.
DPS and Conditions of Approval
19Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the DPS and its proposed conditions are appropriate for the orderly development of the Subject Site and addresses the criteria outlined in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. Furthermore, she opined that the recommended DPS, its implementing conditions and the implementing ZBA collectively constitute good planning in the greater public interest and accord with the matters of Provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act.
20The Tribunal has received draft versions of the Planning Act instruments proposed for approval, which are attached hereto as Appendix 1 (Zoning By-law Amendment), Appendix 2 (Draft Plan of Subdivision) and Appendix 3 (Draft Plan Conditions).
CONCLUSION
21Based on the foregoing uncontested evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development and the Applications: (1) have regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Planning Act; (2) are consistent with the PPS pursuant to s. 3(5)(a) of the Act; (3) conform to the policies of the Growth Plan pursuant to s. 3(5)(b) of the Act; (4) conform to the Regional OP, the Town’s OP and secondary plan pursuant to s. 24(1) and 51(24)(c) of the Act; and (5) have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. Furthermore, in light of the settlement being endorsed by the Town, and supported by the Region, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising appropriate regard for the decision of the Town pursuant to s. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal Orders that:
the appeal is allowed, and Zoning By-law No. 2009-189 of the Town of Oakville is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of Oakville to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
the appeal is allowed, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Paul Edward O.L.S., dated July 22, 2022, comprising Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, North of Dundas Street (Geographic Township of Trafalgar), Town of Oakville, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order;
pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Oakville 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 subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
22The Members of the Tribunal are not seized but may be spoken to via the Case Coordinator.
“Steven T. Mastoras”
STEVEN T. MASTORAS
MEMBER
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. Andrews
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.