Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 09, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001233
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Sifton Properties Ltd.
Subject: By-law No. 2021- 059
Municipality: Middlesex Centre
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001233
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001233
OLT Case Name: Sifton Properties Ltd. v. Middlesex Centre (Municipality)
Heard: May 2, 2023, in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Sifton Properties Ltd. (“Appellant”) Analee Baroudi
Municipality of Middlesex Centre (“Municipality”) Wayne Meagher
Goldleaf Properties (“Applicant”) Jon Barnett
DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is in respect of an appeal pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, brought by the Appellant on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) filed by the Applicant to the Municipality’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2005-005. Staff recommended approval and Zoning By-law 2021-059 was approved by the Municipality on June 23, 2021.
2Pursuant to a decision dated June 2, 2022, the Tribunal approved the request from the Parties that this matter proceed in writing. At the time, the Tribunal was informed that ongoing, progressive discussions were taking place to bring this matter to a resolution and that the Parties were “very close” to coming to a Settlement.
3The Parties have now come to an agreement on all outstanding issues between them as set out in the Minutes of Settlement dated December 2, 2002 (“Proposed Settlement”). As a result, the present hearing, held in writing, was scheduled by the Tribunal. The elements of the Proposed Settlement which are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are now before the Tribunal for approval. In essence, this relates to Draft Amended Zoning By-law contemplated at paragraph 1(d) in the Minutes of Settlement.
4The uncontested evidence in support of the Proposed Settlement was provided by Marion-Frances Cabral, a planner employed by the upper-tier municipality, the Corporation of the County of Middlesex and retained by the Municipality to provide land use planning services. Ms. Cabral’s Affidavit, sworn on April 18, 2023, was marked as Exhibit 1. Based on her curriculum vitae and her Acknowledgement of Expert Duty, both included in her Affidavit, the Tribunal hereby qualifies her as an expert in land use planning.
SUBJECT LANDS AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
5The Subject Lands is municipally known as 311 George Street in the Municipality. The Applicant requested to rezone the lands to a site-specific ‘Urban Residential third Density (UR3-15)’ zone to permit 43 one-storey townhouses, and two semi-detached dwelling (“Proposed Development”). The Proposed Development is an in-fill development to provide rental townhouses for a senior demographic, which is in high demand in the community.
6The zone standards also addressed side and rear lot line setbacks and maximum height. The initial amendment approved by Council placed a “Hold” on the property to require the owner to enter into a site plan agreement with the Municipality before any development could occur on the Subject Lands.
7The Appellant is the developer of the Timberwalk subdivision immediately to the west and south of the Subject Lands. During the Timberwalk development, the Appellant constructed a turning circle at the north end of Mossy Wood Walk on Lot 6, Plan 33M-728 for the future extension of the road when the Subject Property would eventually be developed. This extension was intended to provide a direct access from George Street to Mossy Wood Walk and Song Bird Lane. The Appellant had originally understood that that once Mossy Wood Walk is extended, the turning circle would be removed. This would allow for an existing residential Lot 6 at the corner of Mossy Wood Walk and Violet Court to be developed by the Appellant.
8However, the Applicant's initial proposed site plan, as presented to Council, proposed to create a permanent turning circle therefore rendering Lot 6 undevelopable by the Appellant.
9The Proposed Settlement provides for a revised Final Site Plan and an endorsed Site Plan Control Agreement which ensure the access entrance to the Proposed Development is from the Subject Lands onto the municipally owned road allowance portion of Mossy Wood Walk, without interference to Lot 6. The Applicant is also required to complete the necessary work to remove the temporary portion of the turning circle on Lot 6 and replace the road, sidewalk, and curbs within the municipal road allowance on the permanent road portion of Mossy Road Walk. Pursuant to the Proposed Settlement, an easement is required over the private road of the Proposed Development in favour of the Municipality for vehicular access through the Proposed Development from George Street to Mossy Wood Walk.
10The Draft Amended Zoning By-law contemplated by the Proposed Settlement contains modifications to By-law 2021-059 to reflect the particulars of the Final Site Plan and to remove the Holding symbol (h-2) that was initially approved in By-law 2021-059.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
11Although this was a hearing on a proposed settlement, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the amended Application meets all legislative tests. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the amended Application: (a) has regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; (b) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”); and (c) conform to both the Municipality’s Official Plan (“OP”) and the County of Middlesex’s OP pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Act.
12Ms. Cabral testified through her Affidavit that, in her professional opinion, the proposed Draft Amended Zoning By-law conforms with both OPs and is consistent with the PPS 2020.
13The Tribunal accepts this evidence and finds same.
14As appears to be sadly common in matters before the Tribunal, the Expert Witness’ evidence provided the Tribunal with no direct guidance for an analysis with respect to s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal was nevertheless able to extrapolate, from the analysis of the PPS 2020 and both relevant OPs, as contained in the Expert’s Evidence and the Municipal Record (including the Staff Report presented to Council on April 2, 2021), that regard could be had to matters of provincial interest enumerated at s. 2 of the Act.
15The Subject Lands are largely vacant, underutilized and located close to many amenities. The Ilderton sector, where the Subject Lands are located, is identified in both the County and Municipal OPs as a settlement area. Residential lands abut the Subject Property to the west, south and east, and commercial uses, vacant land and residential uses exist to the north. The Proposed Development would contribute to the availability of a wide variety of housing types to meet demographic and market requirements. The Proposed Development will contribute to the availability of rental units which are in demand, particularly for seniors and so-called “empty nesters”. The Proposed Development is supportive of infill development on existing municipal services, and it avoids potential conflicts with land uses in the surrounding rural area. No environmental, archeological, historical, and cultural concerns are present.
16From a transportation perspective, two parking spaces per units are provided for, as well as six visitor parking spaces. No on street parking is proposed. The access to the development, which is at the heart of the Proposed Settlement, will be supportive of vehicular movement. Since the Proposed Development is intended for seniors and retirees, actual trip generation during peak times is expected to be low.
17The Tribunal notes that it took the Parties nearly one month to provide a missing document, clearly requested on multiple occasions, namely Schedule A to Attachment 1 to this Decision and Order, thus delaying the issuance of this Decision and Order.
CONCLUSION
18Based on the foregoing uncontested evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development and the Draft Amended Zoning By-Law: (1) have regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act; (2) are consistent with the PPS pursuant to s. 3(5)(a) of the Act; and (3) conform to both the Municipality’s OP and the County of Middlesex’s OP pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Act. Furthermore, considering the Proposed Settlement is endorsed by the Municipality, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising regard for the decision of the Municipality pursuant to s. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act.
ORDER OF TRIBUNAL
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act against By-law No. 2021-059 is allowed in part and the Tribunal directs the Municipality of Middlesex Centre to amend By-law No. 2021-059 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS 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
Amendment to the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Comprehensive By-law No. 2005
That Zoning Map Schedule ‘A’, Key Map U-7 to the Middlesex Centre Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2005-005, is hereby amended by changing from the Existing Use (EU) zone to the Urban Residential Third Density exception 15 with (UR3-15) zone in the land drawn in heavy solid lines and identified on Schedule ‘A’, attached hereto and described as being Concession 10 S PT LOT 26 RP 33R4848 PT PART 1 (geographic Township of London), Municipality of Middlesex Centre.
That Section 10.3 ‘Exceptions’ of the Middlesex Centre Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2005-005 be amended by adding the following subsection:
10.3.15
(a) DEFINED AREA
UR3-15 as shown on Schedule “A”, Key Map U-7
(b) PERMITTED USES
accessory use semi-detached dwelling townhouse dwelling
(c) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
4.0 m (13.1 ft) from the southerly property line;
(d) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK
6.75m (23 ft.); 4.0 m (13.1 ft) to Unit 9; and 2.0m (6.5ft) to Unit 311;
0.0 m (0.0 ft) between the common wall divided individual townhouse dwelling units or semi-detached units; 4.0 m (11.5 ft) from the curb of any internal private road.
(e) MAXIMUM HEIGHT
12.0 m (39.4 ft)
(f) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
42%
(g) Notwithstanding Section 4.30 (a) (vi) of the Zoning By-law, open roofed porches may project up to 3.0 m into any required side yard
- This by-law comes into force and takes effect upon the day of passing in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.13.
Schedule A