Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 16, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004051
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 2603235 Ontario Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision
Description: The subject application proposes to change the zoning on the property from Low Density Urban Residential (R1) to a site specific Medium Density Urban Residential (R3-xx) zone.
Reference Number: Town File: 0.3.1130
Property Address: 117 Spring Road
Municipality/UT: Georgina/York
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004051
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004051
OLT Case Name: 2603235 Ontario Limited v. Georgina (Town)
Heard: April 21, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2603235 Ontario Limited Town of Georgina
Kristie Stitt Sarah Kagan Andrew Biggart
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON APRIL 21, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed by 2603235 Ontario Limited (“Appellant”) against the Town of Georgina (“Town”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) within the timeframe prescribed in the Planning Act, R.S.O. c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”). The lands that are the subject of the appeal are known municipally as 117 Spring Road (“Subject Property”).
2The ZBA proposes to amend Town Zoning By-law 500 (the “ZBL”) to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Property with a 16-unit townhouse development consisting of two blocks of townhouse dwellings accessed by a private driveway from Spring Road. The blocks will be oriented with rear yards facing the east property line and the west property line and with the front of the units facing the internal private driveway.
3The ZBA application was filed on October 26, 2018. The Statutory Public Meeting was held on May 29, 2019. The appeal was filed with the Town Clerk on June 13, 2022.
4The Appellant and the Town reached a Settlement on the eve of the Tribunal hearing.
5An Affidavit in support of the Settlement, sworn by Natalie Boodram, a qualified land use planner, was filed as Exhibit 1 with the Tribunal. The Affidavit included executed Minutes of Settlement between the Appellant and the Town.
6The Parties requested that the Tribunal allow the appeal in part and approve the ZBA in principle. The Tribunal was requested to withhold the issuance of the final Order until the Parties provide the Tribunal with the final form of the ZBA. The Appellant is currently processing an application for Site Plan Approval and wishes to ensure that the application has been sufficiently advanced to confirm the final form of the zoning by-law amendments required.
7The Subject Property is located on the south side of Spring Road, east of the intersection of The Queensway South and Spring Road. The Subject Property has an area of 0.4 hectares with a lot frontage of approximately 55 metres (“m”) on Spring Road, and is currently vacant. There is a significant grade change across the Subject Property from east to west, with the east side being notably higher than the west side.
8The Subject Property is in the built-up area of the community of Keswick, which is comprised of predominantly low-rise residential uses including a mix of older homes (pre-1990s) and homes of newer construction. The homes are one to two storeys in height and include single-detached, townhouse, and multi-unit dwellings.
9To the north of the Subject Property, across Spring Road, is a two-storey multi-unit dwelling fronting onto Ley Boulevard. To the east are two-storey single detached dwellings fronting onto the south side of Spring Road, and bungalow-style and two-storey single detached dwellings fronting onto Henry Street, which runs parallel to Spring Road. To the west of the Subject Property is a three-storey townhouse dwelling development accessed by way of a common driveway from Spring Road. These townhouse dwellings are on a site adjacent to The Queensway South. To the south of these townhouses is a three-storey mixed-use building with at-grade commercial uses and apartment-style residential units above.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
10The Settlement Proposal will support the approval of the ZBA to permit 16 townhouse units in two blocks accessed by way of a private driveway from Spring Road. The driveway will be aligned with Ley Boulevard opposite the Subject Property across Spring Road.
11The easterly block of townhouse dwellings (“Block 1”) will have a rear yard along the east property line with a setback of 5.55 m at the closest point, that being the rear of Unit 1, and a setback of 6.55 m to the balance of the units within this Block. Block 1 will contain seven units with exterior unit widths of 6.15 m and 7.19 m, and the interior unit widths will be 6.0 m. The westerly block of townhouse dwellings (“Block 2”) will have a rear yard along the west property line with a setback of 6.15 m. Block 2 will contain nine units with exterior unit widths of 6.15 m and interior unit widths of 6.0 m.
12Each unit will have two parking spaces, one within an attached garage and the second on the driveway in front of the attached garage. There are five visitor parking spaces proposed, including one accessible parking space. Two visitor parking spaces will be located at the northeast corner of the Subject Lands and the remaining three visitor parking spaces at the rear of the Subject Property along the southern boundary line. Two snow storage areas are proposed as well as a 1.0 m pedestrian sidewalk along the west side of the private driveway connecting to the Municipal sidewalk.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
13When considering an appeal of an application to amend a zoning by-law filed pursuant to s. 34 of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the ZBA conforms with the Official Plan in effect.
14In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the request represents good planning and is in the public interest.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
15In support of the Settlement Proposal and ZBA, Ms. Boodram proffered that Section 1 of the PPS outlines policies with regard to building strong and healthy communities by managing land use to achieve efficient development and land use patterns. Ms. Boodram opined that the proposed ZBA is consistent with Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.3 of the PPS as the proposal is located within a designated settlement area and will contribute to a mix of land uses. The Settlement Proposal will introduce sixteen townhouse units on lands previously occupied by a single detached unit and Ms. Boodram opined that this form of infill promotes efficient development and land use patterns within the Town. The Subject Property is currently serviced by Municipal water and wastewater infrastructure; however, Ms. Boodram advised that, as part of the Site Plan Approval process, servicing matters will be addressed and upgrades to the Municipal water and wastewater systems planned for the area will be required prior to the final approval of the Site Plan application. Ms. Boodram opined that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the policies contained in the PPS.
16In consideration of the Growth Plan, Ms. Boodram opined that the proposed ZBA conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. She explained that the Subject Property is located within a “Built-Up Area” and that growth is to be directed towards settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary. The Growth Plan requires Municipalities to ensure that zoning is in place to support intensification that provides a diverse mix of housing options and densities. Ms. Boodram opined that the Settlement Proposal will support the Town’s goals of achieving intensification targets.
17Ms. Boodram explained that at the time of the submission of the ZBA, the 2010 Region of York Official Plan (“2010 ROP”) was in effect. The Region of York Council adopted a new Official Plan in June of 2022 (“2022 ROP”) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the new 2022 ROP in November of 2022. Ms. Boodram advised that the ZBA application is subject to the 2010 ROP. Ms. Boodram further advised, notwithstanding the 2010 ROP, she has reviewed the ZBA against the 2022 ROP as well, as it represents the most current planning vision of the Town.
18The 2010 ROP identifies the Subject Property as being located within the Urban Area. The 2010 ROP requires local municipalities to permit a mix and range of housing types which must be consistent with the Regional forecasts for intensification and density requirements as set out in Policy 3.5.4. The 2010 ROP also requires the Town to meet intensification targets by 2031 as set out in Policy 5.3.3. The Settlement Proposal facilitates the achievement of this policy objective and the meeting of these targets.
19The 2022 ROP also identifies the Subject Property as being located within the Urban Area and as also being located within the Community Area designation within the Urban System. The Community Area designation sets out that residential, population-related employment, and community services are to be directed to lands designated Community Area to accommodate concentrations of existing and future population and employment growth. Lands designated Community Area are also to contain a wide range and mix of housing types, sizes, and tenures. Ms. Boodram opined that the Settlement Proposal accommodates additional population and contributes to a neighbourhood which is evolving to include multi-unit residential development.
20Ms. Boodram concluded that the Settlement Proposal and the ZBA conform to the 2010 ROP and the 2022 ROP.
21The Town Official Plan (“TOP”) identifies the Subject Property as within the Keswick Urban Area, which comprises one of the Settlement Areas in the TOP. Ms. Boodram proffered that Settlement Areas are to be the focus of population growth within the Town. The TOP encourages infill and intensification through the development of vacant or underutilized lands where appropriate, and Ms. Boodram opined that the Settlement Proposal represents appropriate infill and intensification. Ms. Boodram submitted that the TOP directs that a diverse and innovative housing stock be provided and further opined that the proposed townhouse development will diversify the housing stock within the neighbourhood.
22Ms. Boodram testified that the Subject Property is located within the Keswick Secondary Plan (“KSP”) and is designated as Urban Corridor 1, which permits medium-density residential uses. Ms. Boodram confirmed that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the applicable height and density permitted in the Urban Corridor designation. The KSP requires that there is an adequate housing supply in Keswick and encourages infilling and intensification through the redevelopment of underutilized lands. Ms. Boodram opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policy direction provided in the TOP and the KSP.
23Andrew Sears, a qualified expert in the area of transportation planning, provided traffic planning evidence in response to the issues raised by Robert Cullen, a Participant in the proceedings. Mr. Sears provided an Affidavit in support of the Settlement Proposal and the ZBA.
24Mr. Sears reviewed the context of the Subject Property advising that Spring Road is a local road. The Settlement Proposal will create 16 new residential units on a private driveway that accesses Spring Road at a point that has been relocated to align with Ley Boulevard on the northerly side of Spring Road. He proffered that the modest increase in traffic that would be generated by the Settlement Proposal can be accommodated on Spring Road, and notes that the Subject Property is on a hill that slopes downward as you proceed westerly along Spring Road.
25Mr. Sears reviewed the Participant Statement filed by Mr. Cullen and addressed the issues raised therein. Mr. Sears stated that he does not share the concerns raised by Mr. Cullen and opined that the realigned driveway location is adequate from a traffic operations perspective.
26Mr. Sears advised that he has undertaken an analysis of the proposed access point using the sight line distances based on the Transportation Association of Canada’s Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, which, he advised, is an industry-standard document. He confirmed that the driveway location is 77 m from the crest of the hill on Spring Road and this exceeds the required minimum standard of 74 m, which takes into account the slope. Mr. Sears concluded that there is adequate and safe stopping sight distance to the proposed access driveway location, which also takes into consideration the concern raised with the impact of the setting sun on drivers as they crest the hill driving in a westerly direction. Mr. Sears proffered that most traffic using Spring Road will be local traffic and the drivers will be familiar with the area. Mr. Sears advised that there are four warning signs posted on Spring Road as you approach the crest of the hill from the east warning about the upcoming hill for drivers that may not be familiar with the area. Mr. Sears concluded by opining that the sightlines and stopping distances are sufficient to ensure the safe operation of the driveway access.
27In response to traffic volume concerns, Mr. Sears advised that a traffic study conducted in connection with the ZBA identified what Mr. Sears described as reasonable and typical traffic volumes for a local road in this context. Mr. Sears opined that there are no concerns from a traffic operations or safety perspective with the traffic volumes identified in the study.
28The internal driveway meets the Town standards which provide for safe access and turning movements for fire trucks and garbage trucks. Mr. Sears noted that the driveway widths and configurations represent industry best-practice standards across Ontario.
29Mr. Sears proffered that the parking demands can be met wholly on-site including visitor parking requirements as required in the ZBL. It was noted that parking is permitted on Town roads for a maximum period of three hours and there is no prohibition of parking on Spring Road in proximity to the Subject Property.
30Mr. Sears opined that the proposed transportation system, including the proposed driveway, facilitates the needs of the proposed development in a safe and operationally sound manner. He concluded that sight lines for the proposed driveway location are adequate and the proposed development can be supported from a traffic operations perspective.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
31In consideration of the uncontroverted testimony and submissions of Ms. Boodram and Mr. Sears, the Tribunal approves the ZBA in principle for the reasons and subject to the conditions as set out below.
32The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA has regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act.
33The Tribunal finds that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS as it accommodates an appropriate mix of housing types and promotes cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption. The Tribunal notes that the proposed zoning by-law will be subject to a holding provision to ensure that planned water and wastewater infrastructure capacity improvements are completed, thereby promoting the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure.
34The Growth Plan promotes the optimization of lands directing growth to settlement areas and prioritizing intensification. The ZBA conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan and the Tribunal is satisfied the ZBA will contribute to achieving a complete community.
35The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA conforms to the 2010 ROP as the ZBA will support the fulfilment of the Town’s intensification targets and will provide a mix and range of housing types. Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA conforms to the most current direction of the Town through the Community Area policies of the 2022 ROP by providing a mix of housing types to accommodate additional population.
36The Tribunal finds that the ZBA conforms with the TOP and the KSP. The Settlement Proposal represents appropriate infill and intensification of underutilized lands with a medium-density development that will diversify housing stock in the Keswick area.
37The Tribunal reviewed the Participant Statement of Mr. Cullen and is satisfied that the concerns raised have been addressed in the submissions from Mr. Sears.
38The Tribunal approves the ZBA in principle as described in the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its final Order to allow the Appellant to advance the Site Plan Approval application and ensure that the final form of the amending by-law appropriately provides for the development of the Subject Property as described in the Settlement Proposal.
39The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and that the approval of the ZBA is in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 41 below, and that the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is hereby approved in principle.
41The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order subject to the Tribunal having received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Solicitor for the Town of Georgina.
42If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 41 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Thursday, November 30th, 2023, the Applicant and the Town shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event that the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
43The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
44The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument and the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisite to the issuance of the Final Order.
“David Brown”
DAvid Brown
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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