Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 17, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001427

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

Applicant and Appellant: SB Developments Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 500 - Refusal or neglect of the Town of Georgina to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Transitional (T) and Site Specific General Commercial (C1-46)

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific Medium Density Urban Residential (R3-XX) and Site Specific Open Space (OS-XX)

Purpose: To permit 61 four-storey townhouse units on private roads

Property Address/Description: 187-195 Queensway Street South

Municipality: Georgina

Municipality File No.: 03.1140

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001427

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001427

OLT Case Name: SB Developments Inc. v. Georgina (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: SB Developments Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Town of Georgina to make a decision

Purpose: To permit a draft plan of subdivision

Property Address/Description: 187-195 Queensway Street South

Municipality: Georgina

Municipality File No.: 1.152 (19T-19G03) draft Plan of Subdivision

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001428

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001427

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

Applicant and Appellant: SB Developments Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Condominium - Failure of the Town of Georgina to make a decision

Purpose: To permit a draft plan of common element condominium

Property Address/Description: 187-195 Queensway Street South

Municipality: Georgina

Municipality File No.: 1.153 (19CDM-19G01)

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001429

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001427

Heard: CMC by video hearing from June 9, 2022, continued on December 15, 2023 and then continued in writing as a settlement hearing completed on January 26, 2023.

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
SB Developments Inc.	Michael Cara Daniel Artenosi (in absentia)
Town of Georgina	Christine Kapelos Andrew Biggart (in absentia)
Region of York	Samantha Whalen

DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) commenced on June 9, 2022, for the above noted matter. This was subsequently continued on September 15, 2022, and subsequently was converted into a written settlement hearing on December 15, 2022.

2SB Developments Inc.(“Applicant/Appellant”) has property (“Subject Property”) municipally known as 187-195 Queensway Street South in the Town of Georgina (the “Town”).

3The Affidavit of service to provide notice for the CMC and sworn by Michael Cara on May 24, 2022, was reviewed and confirmed to have been duly and appropriately served. This was marked as Exhibit 1.

4This matter arises out of three appeals by the (“Applicant/Appellant”) as follows:

a. Pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act an appeal for the failure or neglect of the Town to make a decision regarding the requested Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”);

b. Pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act an appeal for the failure or neglect of the Town to make a decision regarding the approval of the requested Plan of Sub-division (“POS”); and,

c. Pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act an appeal for the failure or neglect of the Town to make a decision regarding the approval of the requested Plan of Condominium (“POC”)

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

5The Region of York (the “Region”) requested Party Status. The Tribunal initially granted the Region status, subject to the Region further defining their issues and interest in the matter. This Party Status was confirmed per Region’s inputs received leading up to September 15, 2022, continuing CMC.

6There were no requests for Participant Status and none were granted.

WITNESS

7Michael Smith was the only witness. During the continuing CMC held on December 15, 2022, the parties requested that they would provide the required planning evidence of Mr. Smith in the form of a sworn Affidavit. This was allowed by the Tribunal and the hearing proceeded in writing thereafter, with the Affidavit received on January 26, 2023, and it is marked as Exhibit 2 for the record.

8Mr. Smith, in his Affidavit and associated information, swore on January 25, 2023, that he is a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (“M.C.I.P.”) and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (“O.P.P.I.”) and is a Registered Professional Planner (“R.P.P.”) in Ontario. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Smith to be qualified for providing opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Smith’s Affidavit, his Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty and his associated information and evidence (Exhibit 2).

EVIDENCE

9Mr. Smith stated that the site context is as follows:

• North – Law Office and single residential dwellings

• East – Region of York Keswick Water Resources Reclamation Facility (“KWRRF”) and wetland/woodland feature

• South – Two single detached dwellings and commercial uses

• West – Queensway South and single detached residential dwellings.

10Mr. Smith stated that the wetland/woodland feature is located along the east limit of the Subject Lands and forms part of a larger wetland/woodland feature on the Region of York’s (the “Region”) KWRRF site. The Draft Plan was designed, with input from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (the “LSRCA”), to respect this natural heritage feature. This area was staked with the assistance of the LSRCA on June 17, 2019. The staked limit is shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision and on the Draft Plan of Condominium (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4).

11Mr. Smith states that whereas originally almost twice the number of dwelling units were proposed for the Subject Property, in consultation with the Town and in considerations of their comments and concerns, the revised proposal as agreed to in the settlement is virtually half the size. This is shown below as excerpted from Exhibit 2:

Proposed Land use	Block Nos.	Units	Block Area (hectares) ("ha”)
Residential
Freehold Townhouses	1-5	30	0.454
Back-to-Back Freehold Townhouses	6-7	16	0.202
Common Elements	8-10	n/a	0.661
Region Road Widening	11	n/a	0.039
0.3 m Reserve	12-13	n/a	0.002
TOTAL	13	46	1.358

12Mr. Smith provided the following opinion evidence in the review of applicable land use planning statute, policies and plans.

The Planning Act, RSO, 1990, C.P.13

Provincial Interest

13Mr. Smith opined that the proposal has regard for matters of Provincial Interest as required per s. 2 of the Planning Act s follows:

• The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions

• The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water

• The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

• The orderly development of safe and healthy communities

• The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies;

• The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

• The appropriate location of growth and development;

• The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

• The promotion of built form that is (i) well-designed; (ii) encourages a sense of place; and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;

Planning Act s. 51(24) Plan of Subdivision

14Mr. Smith, in review of the requirements in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, opined as follows:

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

The proposed development has regard for the matters of Provincial interest set out under Section 2 of the Planning Act (Tribunal excerpted and noted above).

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

The proposal is not premature. Services are readily available to accommodate the residential development and there is no outstanding planning instrument or physical characteristic or other attribute which would render the proposed subdivision premature. From a public interest perspective, there is significant demand for housing in Ontario and it is within the public interest to accommodate a gentle intensification that is in keeping with the surrounding area.

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

I address the official plan polices below and conclude that the development is in conformity with the York OP [Official Plan], the Georgina OP [Official Plan] and the Secondary Plan. Further, there are no plans of subdivision adjacent to the Subject Lands. However, the proposed subdivision does provide for potential links to adjacent lands to allow for connectivity.

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

The Subject Lands can suitably accommodate the proposed residential development and are currently (partially) used for existing residential development. Engineering and environmental studies have also been completed which confirm suitability.

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

Affordable housing units are not being proposed. However, the form of housing proposed (townhouses and back-to-back townhouses) will improve the range and type of housing options that are available and are generally more affordable than single detached and semi-detached dwellings.

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

The Subject Lands front onto the Queensway South, a Region of York arterial road. A road widening and sight triangles have been provided as requested by the Region. The internal road system is based on private roads which are to be constructed to Town standards.

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

The proposed lots are generally regular in shape and can accommodate the proposed form of development.

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

There are no restrictions or impediments to development.

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

A woodland feature has been identified and staked with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The proposal has been designed to retain this environmentally protected feature together with vegetative buffers that will be owned and maintained by the common element condominium corporation.

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

All utilities are adequate and readily available to the proposed subdivision. Municipal water supply, sanitary sewers and storm sewers are available. Servicing capacity has been reserved for this development.

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

The School Boards did not, upon circulation of the draft plan of subdivision, identify an inadequacy of school sites in the area.

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

No lands within the proposed development are to be conveyed for public purposes.

(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

The plan’s design is very efficient in terms of optimizing the number of units. The construction of the homes will be subject to the energy conservation provisions of the Building Code Act.

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

The Town of Georgina, for freehold/common element developments, like that being proposed, incorporates site plan measures through the draft plan of subdivision conditions and agreement.

15In conclusion of his s. 51(24) analysis, Mr. Smith opined that the proposed subdivision/common element plan conforms to the provisions of Sections 2 and 51(24) of the Planning Act.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”)

16Having reviewed various applicable policies of the PPS, Mr. Smith concluded and opines that:

Development is not proposed within significant woodland. Based on the foregoing, in my opinion the proposed development is consistent with the policies in the PPS in that the proposed development would (i) contribute to a healthy community by preserving the significant natural heritage on site; (ii) contribute to the land mix in this area which minimizes negative impacts to air quality and climate change and promotes energy efficiency; and contributes to the housing mix in Keswick by providing a higher density form of housing.

The Growth Plan, Consolidated 2020 (the “Growth Plan”)

17Mr. Smith elaborated on the applicable policies in the Growth Plan and opines that the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan as:

(i) the proposed development is located within the Built Boundary;

(ii) it is within an area planned for mixed uses and on a Region transit route, thereby reducing dependence on the automobile;

(iii) it contributes to a complete community, and

(iv) it is serviced with municipal water and sewers.

The Greenbelt Plan, 2017

18Mr. Smith reviewed the policies therein briefly and opined that proposed development is in conformity, or, more appropriately, does not conflict with the Greenbelt Plan.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009

19Mr. Smith opined that the proposal retains the natural heritage feature through an appropriate buffer so as to not impair ecological function of the woodland/wetland. He added that the stormwater direction will be addressed at the detailed engineering stage in accordance with the draft POS conditions.

York Region Official Plan, 2010

20Mr. Smith stated that the Subject Property is within the “Towns and Villages” designation. The policy direction is for developing complete and vibrant communities. Mr. Smith stated that, like the Growth Plan, these policies are of a higher-level nature. He opined that, in particular, the direction regarding significant woodlands is addressed because these were staked in the field with LSRCA. No development is planned in the significant woodlands and thus the proposal conforms with the York Region Official Plan.

21Mr. Smith also reviewed the York Region Official Plan , 2022 (“YROP”) and opined that nothing therein alters or adds to need for additional consideration regarding the proposed development versus the York Region Official Plan, 2010.

The Georgina Official Plan, 2016

22Mr. Smith noted that the proposal receives more direct policy direction through the Keswick Secondary Plan 2004 (“KSP”). He opined it is the conformance with KSP which indirectly ensures conformity with the Georgina Official Plan, 2016.

Keswick Secondary Plan 2004 (KSP)

23Mr. Smith provided substantial policy analysis regarding the proposed development’s conformity with the KSP in his Affidavit (Exhibit 2, pages 18-24; paragraphs 52-72).

24Mr. Smith opined that his analysis establishes that the proposal conforms with the KSP.

The Town Zoning By-law No. 500 (ZBL)

25Mr. Smith stated that the ZBL zones the Subject Land “Transitional (T)” (for 187, 189, and 195 Queensway South) and “General Commercial (C1-46)” (for 193 Queensway South).

26Mr. Smith added that the proposed zoning by-law amendment, based on the current plan of subdivision/common element condominium plans, is to change the zoning categories to “Medium Density Urban Residential (R3-93)”, “Medium Density Urban Residential (R3-94)”, “Medium Density Urban Residential (R3-95)” and “Open Space “OS-125”.

27Mr. Smith continued and described that the zoning amendment addresses the specifics of the seven townhouse blocks on such matters as lot size, lot coverage, yards, height, driveway width, encroachments into yards, and accessory structures and buildings. It also delineates the limit of the environmental protection block.

The Draft Plan Conditions

28Mr. Smith stated that the conditions address the interests of the Town, the Region, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Canada Post and Enbridge in regard to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. The School Boards, Hydro One and Bell did not add to conditions of draft approval.

29He opined that these draft plan conditions are appropriate and in the public interest, in particular, those related to: (i) the requirement of site engineering and servicing, (ii) ensuring the appropriate setback to the Keswick Water Resource Reclamation Facility, (iii) the protection of the on- site natural heritage area, access and widening of the Queensway South, including an emergency vehicles access, (iv) achieving good urban and architectural design, vi) implementation of a zoning by-law amendment, (vii) an assessment of noise impacts, viii) an analysis of water balance and phosphorous analysis and compensation, and ix) provision of utilities

Summary: Mr. Smith opinion evidence

30The following is excerpted from Mr. Smith’s Affidavit:

(a) The proposed development and implementing Draft Plan of Subdivision, conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, and Zoning By-law Amendment (the “Implementing Instruments”) have been prepared having regard to Sections 2 and 51(24) of the Planning Act.

(b) The proposed development and the implementing instruments are consistent with the PPS (2020), including but not limited to Sections 1.1.1 (h), 1.1.3.2 (a)(3), 1.4.3, and 2.1.5 regarding: sustainable communities, growth management, provision of housing and protection of natural heritage.

(c) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the Growth Plan (2020 consolidation), including but not limited to Sections 2.2.1 regarding: managing growth, contributing to a complete community, and protecting environmental features.

(d) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments do not conflict with the Greenbelt Plan.

(e) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the LSSP including but not limited to Section 6.34 regarding: protection of the natural environment through the use of a natural self-sustaining vegetation buffer.

(f) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the York OP including but not limited to Sections 2.2.44, 2.2.45, 5.6 regarding: protection of woodlands and building complete communities.

(g) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the York OP 2022, though this policy document was not in effect at the time the planning applications were submitted.

(h) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the Georgina OP including but not limited to Sections 1.7, 3.1, 7.1.1 regarding: sustainable communities, the protection of Lake Simcoe, growth management, and the relationship of the Georgina OP and its relationship to secondary plan areas, including Keswick.

(i) The proposed development and the implementing Instruments conform to the Keswick Secondary Plan including but not limited to Sections 13.2.2.2, 13.1.2.2, 13.1.2.4, 13.1.2.5 13.1.2.9, 13.1.3.2, 13.1.8.4, 13.1.3.2.3 13.1.3.7, 13.1.4.2.2, 13.1.5, 13.1.6, regarding sustainable communities, community design, tree conservation, LSRCA regulated areas, density and height, compatibility, protection and maintenance of the Greenlands System, transportation, and servicing.

(j) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments conform to the general intent and purpose of Town Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended, on the basis that the proposed development prescribes appropriate site-specific development standards that will ensure that the redevelopment is appropriate for the Subject Lands and compatible with the emerging land use and built form context that is envisioned for the surrounding area.

k) The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments have regard for the matters of Provincial interest set out under Section 2 of the Planning Act including sub-sections 2.1 matters of Provincial Interest and 3.(1) Policy Statements regarding: protection of ecological systems, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision of housing, the location of growth and development, and the promotion of sustainable development and built form. The proposed development and the Implementing Instruments also have regard for the criteria included in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act regarding matters of Provincial Interest, whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest, conformity to the Official Plan, suitability of the land for development, width of public roads, dimension and shapes of lots, conservation of environmental features, adequacy of servicing and school sites, the efficient use and conservation of energy, and the interrelationship between the design of the proposed subdivision and site plan control matters.

ANALYSIS

31The Tribunal has reviewed the record on file and the detailed analysis with specific policy excerpts and supporting documents provided by Mr. Smith in his Affidavit.

32The Tribunal noted that the opinion evidence submitted by Mr. Smith is uncontroverted and unopposed. Mr. Smith’s evidence is thorough and complete in assessing the applicable policies as they apply to the proposed development of the Subject Property. Mr. Smith duly addressed the aspects of policies as these relate to the proposal as well as how these apply to the three appeals. Namely, these appeals are a ZBA pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act and two appeals pursuant to plans of subdivision/condominium pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

33The Tribunal thus finds based on the opinion evidence of Mr. Smith that the ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial Interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, the plans for the Region, the Georgina Official Plan, KSP, and the policies in the LSPP as well as the associated linked plans. The Tribunal finds that the ZBA represents good land use planning.

34The Tribunal also finds that the POS and POC have satisfied the requisite considerations under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

35The Tribunal also finds that the conditions for the proper implementation of the POS and the POC as established pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Planning Act are appropriate.

ORDER

36THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal filed by SB Developments Inc. with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment is allowed, in part, and that Town of Georgina Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended, is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal filed by SB Developments Inc. with respect to the Draft Plan of Subdivision is allowed, in part, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision dated December 21, 2022, and shown in Attachment 2 to this Order is approved subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Georgina, as the approval authority in which the lands are situated, 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 Planning Act.

39The Tribunal may be spoken to if any issues arise regarding the clearing of conditions of draft plan approval or the processing of the Draft Plan of Condominium.

“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 Zoning By-law Amendment to the Town of Georgina Zoning By-law No. 500

ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision

ATTACHMENT 3 Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions