Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 12, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001210
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 64
Municipality: Town of Milton
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001210
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210
OLT Case Name: Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. v. Milton (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.
Subject: By-law No. 053-2021
Municipality: Town of Milton
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001211
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210
Heard: October 24, 2022, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. (“Appellant”)
David Donnelly Melanie Le Bouedec (student-at-law) Monique Gill (student-at-law)
Town of Milton (“Town”)
Konstantine Stavrakos
Vue Developments On Main Inc. (“Applicant”)
Scott Snider Shelley Kaufman
Link to Final Order
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David l. lanthier ON october 24, 2022 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal conducted a Settlement Hearing at the request of the Parties on October 24, 2022 and provided an oral decision.
2Upon the evidence provided, and the findings made, the Tribunal now issues this Memorandum of Oral Decision and the Final Order amending the Town of Milton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 016-2014 as amended, in the form requested. As a result of the withdrawal of the only appeal relating to Official Plan Amendment No. 64 (“OPA 64”), the Tribunal also provides notice pursuant to s. 17(30) of the Planning Act that OPA 64 comes into effect, as part of the Town’s Official Plan (“Town OP”), as of the effective date of withdrawal, on October 24, 2022.
BACKGROUND AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
3The Applicant made applications for an amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and to the Town OP (the “Applications”) to permit the proposed development of lands located on a composite of lots located on Bronte Street North (“Development”). The proposed Development underwent various changes as a result of the public consultation and municipal review process.
4With recommendations of Town Planning Staff, the Town Council passed By-law No. 053-2021 adopting OPA 64 and passed Zoning By-law Amendment No. 054-2021 (“ZBLA”) on June 22, 2021, approving the Development in the proposed form, then before the Town.
5The Appellant then appealed both OPA 64 and the ZBLA on July 14, 2021. The Appeals were case managed by the Tribunal, and following various without prejudice meetings, the Applicant, the Town and the Appellant agreed to a settlement which were reduced to written Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”). The Parties then requested the opportunity to present the settlement to the Tribunal and attended.
6In support of the proposed settlement of the Appeals, the Tribunal received planning evidence from Ms. Dana Anderson, of MHBC Planning, inclusive of her Affidavit sworn on October 14, 2022. Having reviewed Ms. Anderson’s Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) and executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, the Tribunal qualified Ms. Anderson as an expert able to provide land use planning evidence.
7Ms. Anderson’s sworn Affidavit and Document Book, filed on behalf of the Applicant, was marked as Exhibit 1 and the Minutes were marked as Exhibit 2. The Tribunal also received a Draft Order which included the proposed ZBLA, as well as OPA 64 as originally adopted by Town Council, which would, upon the withdrawal of the Appeal of OPA 64, come into force and effect by operation of s. 17(30) of the Planning Act.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FORM OF DEVELOPMENT
8The Minutes (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 7 to Dana Anderson’s Affidavit) were filed with the Tribunal and reflect the resolution reached between the Parties. The Minutes confirm revisions to the proposed ZBLA to include specific setbacks for rooftop terraces to address overlook concerns. The other minor revision to the ZBLA also revises the provisions relating to the outdoor amenity space. The Minutes also allow for further opportunity of the Parties to consider further design elements in advance of site plan approval. Finally, the Minutes provide for an agreement for a future further traffic calming study to be conducted by the Town and paid for by the Applicant.
9Ms. Anderson provided a detailed history of the Applications from their original submission through to the additional public consultations, review and discussions that have occurred since the Appeals were first case managed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been apprised of the various changes that were made as a result of these efforts that ultimately resulted in the final form of the proposed development and additional steps to be implemented to advance the Development forward.
10In its current iteration the Development is to include: two mixed-use towers, one 17-storey and one 18-storey in height; a total of 508 residential units; commercial areas; private amenity space; landscaped areas; a Privately Owned Public Open Space (“POPS”); loading areas; 637 surface and underground vehicle parking spaces and 430 long term and short-term bicycle parking spaces.
11The two instruments now presented to the Tribunal were reviewed by Ms. Anderson in her evidence. OPA 64, as it will now be brought into force, re-designates the Site by adding a Special Policy exception to the current Urban Area Special Policy Areas of the Town OP and provides for a minor land use boundary adjustment to better align with the development boundaries. OPA 64 also increases the permitted height to allow for up to 18 storeys in height and a maximum residential density of 380 units per hectare (“ha”).
12The proposed final ZBLA will rezone the Site to the identified special zoning provisions with a holding symbol. The ZBLA provides for various conditions to be met with respect to the Holding provision and will permit the Applicant to apply for minor variances within two years of the ZBLA approval. It also provides for the increased maximum building height of 18 storeys (58 metres (”m”)), set out additional uses and special Site Provisions, and provide for specific performance standards to implement the Development. Notably, to reflect the settlement, it makes the revisions to the setbacks for the roof top terraces and outdoor amenity spaces as they were set out in the ZBLA enacted by Town Council.
13The settlement under the Minutes requests that the Tribunal approve the ZBLA , as amended, and confirm the withdrawal of the appeal relating to OPA 64. As such, with the additional processes to follow relating to the site plan and the commitment to the ongoing dialogue on matters of design, the future traffic calming study, possible additional minor variances if authorized, and the imposed conditions under the Holding Provision, the approval of the ZBLA and OPA 64 will enable the revised Development to proceed.
ISSUES
14In considering the proposed ZBLA and OPA 64, in light of the withdrawal of the Appeal under s. 17(24), the Tribunal must have regard to those matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and must be satisfied, pursuant to s. 3(5) that the proposed ZBLA and OPA 64, as they will permit the proposed Development, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and will conform with, or not conflict with, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”).
15The ZBLA must also conform to the Region of Halton’s consolidated Official Plan, and the Town OP, as amended by OPA 64, and its related policies, specifically those relating to intensification, the proper integration and transitioning of intensification development through building placement and design, compatibility, built form and urban design, and the impacts of development. The ZBLA must also provide for appropriate performance standards as they will amend the Town’s Zoning By-law. The Tribunal generally must determine if the proposed ZBLA, OPA 64 and Development represent good planning, is in the public interest and should be enacted and approved.
16Finally, the Tribunal must also have regard to any decision of Town Council as it is related to the ZBLA and OPA 64, including its recent decision to approve the proposed settlement and also the supporting information and material that was before Council in making such decisions in relation to the Appeals now before the Tribunal.
PLANNING EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17After providing the overview of the proposed Development and its context, Ms. Anderson provided a fulsome overview of the provincial and local planning policy context and her analysis, and her planning opinion regarding the proposed ZBLA and OPA 64 as they will permit the Development. The Development was comprehensively supported by numerous studies, reports, and reviews including those relating to architecture and urban design, planning, shadow and wind impacts, transportation, stormwater management and hydrogeology, environmental and archaeology, which were addressed in Ms. Anderson’s evidence. Exhibit 1 also included (in Exhibits 5 and 6 of the Document Book) visual evidence and the set of Architectural Drawings to assist in providing context and an overview of the Development, which have been reviewed by the Tribunal.
18Upon hearing the uncontroverted planning evidence of Ms. Anderson, and for the reasons set out herein, the Tribunal finds, in all respects, that the proposed ZBLA, as it will permit the proposed Development, addressed all of the statutory requirements under the Planning Act, is in conformity to all Regional and municipal planning policies and represents good planning in the public interest. The Tribunal delivered the oral decision allowing the ZBLA Appeal, in part, and amending the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 015-2014, as amended, as it will apply with respect to the Site in accordance with the draft ZBLA submitted jointly by the Parties. The Tribunal also confirmed the withdrawal of the Appeal of OPA 64, thus allowing it to come into effect as set out herein.
19Ms. Anderson first confirmed that the Development had regard for matters of Provincial interest and then provided a brief, but thorough, overview of the higher order policies of the PPS and the Greater Golden Horseshoe as they relate to the proposed Development and succinctly identified those policies brought into play. She concluded that the Development, as permitted by OPA 64 and the proposed ZBLA, is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan, including policies relating to compact urban form, intensification in appropriate locations, housing options and growth policies. The Tribunal accepts this evidence and has made the appropriate findings in that regard.
20Ms. Anderson then provided a comprehensive overview of the relevant and applicable policies within the Region of Halton Official Plan, as consolidated, and the Town OP and a detailed analysis supporting her opinion that the Development, as permitted by the presented Instruments, conformed in all respects to those policies. At the Regional level, Ms. Anderson has concluded that the Development will facilitate intensification in an underutilized greyfield area, assist in meeting the long-term needs of the Region (and Town) in a manner supportive of public transit and active transportation in proximity to services. As the Development will add 508 new housing units the Development will further growth and intensification targets of both the Region and the Town, meet housing objectives, and provide for development in appropriate areas designated for such development.
21The Development, in Ms. Anderson’s view, also conforms to the various policies of the Town OP and she provided a thorough planning analysis to support this opinion. In addition to those similar policies addressing intensification, transportation and transit, employment opportunities, downtown residential and commercial intensification, and housing policies, the Development, given the location of the Site as a gateway location, will also conform to the various urban design, built-form, transportation and development objectives and policies with respect to the proposed design of the Development. Ms. Anderson has opined that the Development: addresses impacts on the local road network and justifies the parking reductions; with the supporting technical studies related to planning, urban design, shadow impacts, view impacts, wind, noise and vibration that were completed, addresses all potential impacts and mitigates such potential impacts; and is compatible with the existing and surrounding areas.
22Specifically, Ms. Anderson provided a detailed planning opinion as to how the Development adheres to the Urban Design Objectives and conforms to those urban design policies in the Town OP. In this regard, Ms. Anderson addressed the manner in which the revised ZBLA has addressed matters of privacy and overlook in setbacks in the rooftop terrace areas and provides sufficient appropriate outdoor amenity space (as reduced to a minimum of 3.8 square metres (“sq m”) per dwelling unit) and landscaping, inclusive of the POPS.
23In regards to the 1,062 sq m of commercial area and 854 sq m of office area in the Development, the proposal conforms to the intent of those OP policies relating to the Central Business District including those directed to the preservation, promotion and enhancement of the function of the core area of the Town as the primary centre for commerce, tourism and civic activity at a pedestrian-scale. In conjunction with the 508 residential units in a high-quality urban design/architectural built-form, and the commercial areas within the mixed-use Development, create a live-work relationship and transit-supportive densities enhanced with the POPS and sufficient outdoor amenity space that is sensitive and compatible with the existing character and appearance of the area.
24Additionally, in Ms. Anderson’s opinion, the Development conforms to the various policies in the Town OP addressing transportation, transit, traffic, parking, employment objectives, and applicable urban design policies, including those in the Town of Milton Tall Building Guidelines (2018). Ms. Anderson has provided complete evidence in this regard, referencing the architectural drawings submitted to the Tribunal.
25It is also Ms. Anderson’s opinion that the proposed ZBLA provides for appropriate provisions to implement the Town OP and also reflects good planning.
26In summary, Ms. Anderson has provided her overall conclusive planning opinion as to the proposed Development, as permitted by the ZLBA and OPA 64. Having regard to the Site, the existing and planned context of the Site and the specifics of the proposed Development, and, in considering the whole of the evidence presented, the Tribunal accepts Ms. Anderson’s ultimate specific and general planning conclusions, and makes findings in every respect, congruent with each of such specific and general conclusions. Those planning conclusions, and the ultimate findings of the Tribunal, are that the Development, as permitted by the ZBLA and OPA 64:
has regard for matters of Provincial interest under the Planning Act;
is consistent with the PPS;
is in conformity with the Growth Plan;
is in conformity with the Halton Region Official Plan;
is in conformity with the Town OP(as amended by OPA 64);
is in compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (as amended by the ZBLA);
provides for an appropriate, well designed development that is compatible with the surrounding area and does not create adverse impacts; and,
represents good planning and is in the public interest.
27The Tribunal will accordingly allow the Appeal relating to the ZBLA in part and make the necessary Order based upon the draft ZBLA presented jointly by the Applicant, the Town and the Appellant. The Tribunal will also confirm in this Decision and Order that the Appellant has withdrawn its Appeal of OPA 64 and that, consistent with the intent of the Parties under the Minutes will allow for s. 17(30) of the Planning Act to apply, which makes Council’s Decision adopting OPA 64 final and brings into effect OPA 64 and the amendments to the Town OP.
ORDER
Appeal – Zoning By-law Amendment – s. 34(19)
28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal against Zoning By-law No. 054-2021 of the Town of Milton under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act is allowed in part, and Town of Milton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 016-2014, as amended, is hereby amended as set out in Schedule A to this Order. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the Appeal is dismissed.
Appeal – Official Plan Amendment – s. 17(24)
29THE TRIBUNAL, having received confirmation from the Appellant that the Appeal under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, appealing the adoption by Town of Milton Council, of Official Plan Amendment No. 64, is withdrawn in its entirety, and the time for filing of any other appeals having expired, HEREBY PROVIDES NOTICE of the withdrawal of the Appeal to the Clerk for the Town of Milton pursuant to s. 17(30) of the Planning Act.
30THE TRIBUNAL, in providing such notice, hereby confirms that by operation of s. 17(30) of the Planning Act:
(a) The decision by Town of Milton Council to adopt Amendment No. 64 to the Official Plan of the Town of Milton, without amendment, is final; and,
(b) Amendment No. 64 as adopted by the Town without modification, amending the Official Plan of the Town of Milton, in the form set out in Schedule B to this Order, comes into effect as part of the Official Plan of the Town of Milton on October 24, 2022.
Other Orders/Directives
31The Parties have confirmed to the Tribunal that there are no requests for costs to be advanced by any of the Parties and no decision of the Tribunal is made in that regard.
32The Tribunal may be spoken to if any issues arise in respect of this Order and its implementation.
“David L. Lanthier”
DAVID L. LANTHIER
VICE-CHAIR
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.