Flamborough Power Centre Inc. v. Hamilton (City), 2023 CanLII 69379

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 27, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001345

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Flamborough Power Centre Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Hamilton to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: District Commercial

Proposed Designation: Neighbourhoods

Purpose: To permit the development of a complete community on the subject lands with different residential building types including townhomes and multiple dwelling buildings

Property Address/Description: 30 Dundas Street East

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Approval Authority File No.: UHOPA-19-012

OMB Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001345

OMB Case No.: OLT-21-001345

OMB Case Name.: Flamborough Power Centre Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Flamborough Power Centre Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 05-200 – Neglect of application by City of Hamilton

Existing Zoning: District Commercial

Proposed Zoning: Downtown Residential (D6, xxx), Modified

Purpose: To permit the development of a complete community on the subject lands with different residential building types including townhomes and multiple dwelling buildings

Property Address/Description: 30 Dundas Street East

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Municipal File No.: ZAC-19-044

OMB Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001345

OMB Case No.: OLT-21-001355

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

Applicant and Appellant: Flamborough Power Centre Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Hamilton to make a decision

Purpose: To permit the development of a complete community on the subject lands with different residential building types including townhomes and multiple dwelling buildings

Property Address/Description: 30 Dundas Street East

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Municipal File No.: 25T-2019005

OMB Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001345

OMB Case No.: OLT-21-001356

Heard: June 26 and June 28, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Flamborough Power Centre Inc.	Dennis Wood Bogdan Artus (Student at law)
City of Hamilton	Patrick Macdonald Rachel McVean (in absentia)
Niagara Escarpment Commission Conservation Halton	Sarah Valair Ken Hare (in absentia) Aashish Oberoi Konstantine Stavrakos (in absentia)

DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A CROSER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The Tribunal convened a merit hearing in the matter of the appeal by Flamborough Power Centre Inc. (the “Applicant”) against the failure of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendments and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPOS”). These proceedings were commenced under s. 22(7), s.34(11), and s. 51(34) respectively of the Planning Act (“Act”) and pertain to a redevelopment proposal for large tracts of land located within the area of Highway 6 and Highway 5. The Applicant applied for the OPA, ZBLAs, and DPOS (collectively, the “Draft Instruments”) to facilitate the development of a complete community comprising of residential, commercial, and institutional uses.

2A two-week hearing on the merits of the matter was scheduled to begin on June 26, 2023, with a further five-day hearing scheduled for October 2023 to address Conditions of Draft Plan approval/Subdivision Agreement Provisions, if required.

3On June 26, 2023, most of the Parties appeared before the Tribunal and explained that a settlement had been reached with the City with respect to the OPA, and with the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”). It was requested that the Tribunal stand down to allow the Applicant and City some more time to address the remaining matters of difference.

4Conservation Halton (“CH”) did not appear before the Tribunal on June 26, 2023. However, in response to a communication by the Case Coordinator, CH stated that it had no issues with the proposed OPA, ZBLAs, or DPOS, and that it would not be attending the hearing. CH expects to attend the October hearing dates if they are required.

5The Tribunal did not receive a Participant Statement from Liburdi Engineering Limited, who were granted Participant Status at the first Case Management Conference held in March 2022. Counsel for the Applicant informed the Tribunal that he had reached out to the owner of the corporation to provide submission deadline date for the Participant Statement. He was informed that the owner of the company was deceased. There was no indication that a new owner or representative of the company would be filing a Participant Statement.

6The Tribunal stood down until June 28, 2023. At the resumption of the hearing event, the Applicant and the City stated that they had reached an accord on the ZBLAs and the DPOS. However, due to the short turnaround, Counsel for the City had no instructions with respect to a settlement. As such, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted and uncontested evidence on the merits of the appeal from the Applicant’s Planner, Gerry Tchisler . The City’s Planner, Charlie Toman then explained how the City’s issues with respect to planning, as set out in Mr. Toman’s Witness Statement, were now resolved to its satisfaction.

DECISION

7The Tribunal acknowledges the cooperation of the Applicant and the City in reaching an agreement. However, the Tribunal must still consider whether the Draft Instruments are representative of good land use planning and in the public interest. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence provided in support of this Application and the lack of contrary evidence led by the City. The appeal is allowed with the understanding that conditions for the DPOS will be addressed at the hearing dates in October, if required.

REASONS

Site and Area Context

8The lands in question are a group of properties located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of Highway 6 and Highway 5. The lands abut Highway 6, Dundas Street East, Leavitt Boulevard, Clappison Avenue and Horseshoe Crescent. The group of properties located north of Dundas Street East (the “North lands”) are approximately 18.6 hectares (“ha”) in area, the group of properties south of Dundas Street East (the “South Lands”) are approximately 6.9 ha in area.

9The North Lands consist of a shopping centre and vacant undeveloped areas. The lands are zoned for commercial use. One area of the undeveloped land contains an isolated wetland area and drainage feature. Immediately adjacent to the North Lands is a municipal stormwater management pond and Borer’s Creek, a natural area with a watercourse and walking trails. Other nearby uses include commercial uses and low-density residential uses.

10The South Lands consist of vacant undeveloped areas and also include an isolated wetland and drainage feature. The lands are zoned for commercial use. In close proximity to the South Lands are existing commercial and employment areas, low-density residential uses with the escarpment further to the south. The South Lands will continue to be used largely for commercial purposes with the addition of retirement and long-term care uses.

11The Subject Lands are near parks, trails, open spaces and community facilities including schools and health facilities. There is access to an existing bus route which provides services through Waterdown and to the Aldershot GO Station. In addition, there are several transit improvements planned for the area, including rapid transit routes, construction of a transit terminal, and the conversion of the intersection of Highway 6 and Dundas Street East into a grade separated interchange.

The Proposed Project

12The Applicant proposes a development of residential, commercial, and institutional uses on the Subject Lands, which will form part of a complete community when considered in the context of existing uses in the area.

13The North Lands would predominantly be developed with residential uses in various forms of townhomes and apartment buildings ranging in height from three to twenty storeys. The development would also include the creation of new public roads, stormwater management facilities, a public park, and a non-vehicular crossing over Borer’s Creek.

14The South Lands will be developed consistent with existing commercial land use designation and zoning, with additional permission for retirement and long-term care uses.

Draft Instruments

15The Subject Lands are currently designated in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”) as District Commercial and are also subject to Area Specific Policy UF-1, which is located within the City’s Urban Boundary but outside of the built-up area designated in the UHOP. These policies are geared towards commercial use and prohibit residential development.

16The OPA framework would implement a different set of policies for the North and South Lands which would reflect the proposal to establish an intensive residential community on the North Lands. The OPA proposes to remove the North Lands from UF-1 and create a new Special Policy Area (“SPA”) for these lands, known as UF-2. The new SPA will be a comprehensive set of policies to guide development in a high-density residential area.

17After reaching an agreement with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Applicant modified the OPA to establish height regimes which will provide that orientation, design, and massing of a building or structure higher than fourteen and eighteen storeys shall consider the impact on general public views of the area of the Niagara Escarpment.

18The development of the North Lands would require the existing wetland and drainage feature to be removed to accommodate future development. In consultation with CH, which has jurisdiction over the feature, the Applicant has entered into an agreement with the Hamilton Naturalists Club to recreate this wetland on lands owned by the Club in the same watershed as compensation for the loss of the feature in its existing location. Given that CH did not attend the Hearing and does not oppose the Draft Instruments, the Tribunal assumes that CH is satisfied with this arrangement.

19The South Lands would remain in UF-1, thus retaining commercial permissions. The OPA would introduce new uses including, amongst others: expansion of gross floor area limits, remove maximum lot coverages, permit retirement and long-term care uses, and permission to remove a natural heritage feature (the isolated wetland).

20The OPA also contains an extensive implementation section which provides direction on holding provisions, phasing requirements with respect to transportation infrastructure, functional servicing as well as detailed policies regarding the studies required prior to draft plan of subdivision approval and in the context of the removal of holding provisions.

21The ZBLAs consists of amending by-laws to two zoning by-laws: Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05 – 200 and Flamborough Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z. The ZBLA for the latter deals exclusively with the North Lands (“ZBLA 1”). The ZBLA for Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05 – 200 would address both the North and South Lands (“ZBLA 2”). The proposed ZBLAs would control development through permitted uses, regulations, and the use of holding provisions.

22ZBLA 1 will rezone the North Lands to modified high density R8 zone with site specific and holding provisions. Holding provisions will also be in place with respect to implementing the OPA including: requirements for active transportation connection, requirement for permission from CH prior to any development, phasing and capping requirements. A Holding symbol will also be included for buildings greater than prescribed heights which shall not be removed until a visual impact assessment is submitted to the satisfaction of the City.

23ZBLA 2 deals with the South Lands and stormwater management and the park located north of Dundas Street. It contains a holding provision related to the area of wetland on the site. If it is proposed to be removed as part of development, then Applicant must submit a detailed design of measures intended to replicate the hydrologic functions of the existing riparian wetland features to the satisfaction of the City. Given that CH did not attend the Hearing and does not oppose the Draft Instruments, the Tribunal assumes that CH is satisfied with this provision.

24The DPOS will create legally conveyable developable blocks, municipal roads and blocks for parks and stormwater management infrastructure. The DPOS would only apply to the North lands, with the South Lands to be developed through future development applications.

25Through the use of large blocks that are intended to be further subdivided into smaller lots in the future, the design of the DPOS allows flexibility in building orientation. The DPOS lays out a road pattern via the extension of Horseshoe Crescent and the creation of two new streets. The block arrangement conforms with the objectives of the OPA by, among other things, expanding SWM facilities, park blocks along Borer’s Creek, and providing safe access to the existing municipal road network.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

26Mr. Tchisler opined that the Draft Instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). In particular, he referenced policy directions with respect to sustaining healthy, liveable, and safe communities, and the direction that growth in settlement areas requires efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure and support active and public transportation.

27To Mr. Tchisler, the introduction of residential land uses facilitates a pattern of land use that results in a more complete and integrated mix of land uses. He noted that the Subject Lands were located next to an Employment Area and was within a commercial area. He opined that the “introduction of residential uses achieves the missing element for the complete community and better achieves transit and active transportation objectives for the City.” To the Planner, the proposed development would “facilitate a development that will create a connected and complete community within the City’s urban structure that is more consistent with the PPS than maintaining the current designation, which is geared toward land extensive, large format commercial uses.”

28Mr Tchisler, also touched upon the PPS policies with respect to Housing, Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities. He stated that the Draft Instruments would facilitate a range of medium and high-density housing forms, including retirement and long-term care uses. The proposed development is within an area with existing municipal water, and wastewater services. The development will be able to take advantage of existing transit services and the planned upgrades to public transit facilities in the area will benefit from the increase in residential density.

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, August 2020 Consolidation

29Mr. Tchisler referenced Policies that direct growth to settlement areas, strategic growth areas, locations with existing or planned transit and locations with existing or planned public service facilities. The Planner opined that the Subject Lands are a good location for growth and that the Draft Instruments will facilitate a development that will support the achievement of a complete community with a compact built form.

30The Planner noted the fact that there is existing municipal water and wastewater infrastructure available to service the proposed development. The existing and future access to public transit, as well as the current location of the Subject Lands next to large employment and commercial area, will provide necessary services and facilities near the proposed residential land uses.

31Mr. Tchisler also drew the Tribunal’s attention towards policies which provide direction for development in greenfield areas, including that such development be designated, zoned and design to support the achieve of complete communities, active transportation, and viable transit services. He noted that the minimum greenfield density target identifies in the Growth Plan for the City of Hamilton is 50 residents and jobs per ha. The Application will provide for a minimum required gross density of 150 residents and jobs per ha.

The Greenbelt Plan, 2017

32The Applicant’s Planner explained that, with reference to the Greenbelt Plan, the North Lands are identified ‘Towns/Villages’ and the South Lands are identified as ‘Niagara Escarpment Plan Area’. A limited range of Greenbelt policies apply to lands identified as Towns/Villages and Niagara Escarpment Plan Area with development generally intended to be governed by the underlying local official plans and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”).

33Mr. Tchisler noted that the policies of the Greenbelt Plan encourage the establishment of publicly accessible parkland, open spaces and trails within the Greenbelt for the purposes of recreation and achievement of complete communities. The Planner opined that the proposed development of the North Lands is consistent with this direction through the establishment of a new park with trail connections to the existing Borer’s Creek trail system and the proposed stormwater management pond.

Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017, April 5, 2021

34The NEP is only applicable the South Lands which are identified as ‘Urban Area’ in the NEP. The objective of the Urban Area designation is to minimize the impact and prevent further encroachment of urban growth on the Escarpment environment. The potential impact identified with this development proposal is the impact of building height on the scenic resources of the Escarpment.

35The Policies of the NEP require that development be of a design that is compatible with the scenic resources and that where appropriate maximum heights and setbacks be utilized to minimize the visual impact.

36Mr. Tchisler noted that several Visual Impact Assessments were conducted on behalf of the Applicant. As part of the agreement reached with the NEC additional modifications were made to the OPA and ZBLAs to ensure that the future built form will be compatible with the scenic resources of the escarpment. As such, Mr. Tchisler is of the view that the applicable Draft Instruments conform with the NEP.

Urban Hamilton Official Plan

37Mr. Tchisler opined that the Application conforms with the UHOP in that it allows for the establishment of a complete community. He stated that the proposed development will provide a range of housing types and will be well supported by existing and planned transit upgrades.

38The Planner was of the view that the proposed OPA for the South Lands conforms with the UHOP as it will continue to permit commercial uses to serve the community. He also pointed out that future uses will be able to make more efficient use of the lands without constraints on lot coverage and gross floor area permissions.

Hamilton Zoning By-law 05 – 200 and Flamborough Zoning By-law 90-145-Z

39Mr. Tchisler explained that the present zoning generally prohibits residential uses. The Planner is of the view that the proposed ZBLAs will reflect the more modern zoning standards being applied across the City and are consistent with the OPA in that it facilitates the implementation of a compact and efficient built form with a range of housing forms and creating a mixed-use area that is transit supportive.

Conclusion

40Mr. Tchisler’s opinion after his review of all relevant documents in assessing the development proposal was that this was an appropriate development of the Subject Lands, and the Application represented good planning and was in the public interest.

POSITION OF THE CITY

41Counsel for the City stated that the City Council had settled on the OPA with the Applicant in April 2023. He noted that, given the two-day timeframe, he had no instructions to settle with respect to the ZBLAs and the DPOS. However, the City had no contrary evidence to lead at the hearing.

42The City’s Planner, Charlie Toman, was now supportive of the OPA and ZBLAs and provided his evidence in this respect. Counsel for the City stated that due to the modifications that the Applicant had made with respect to the Draft Instruments and conditions to be imposed on future development that the City’s other experts were satisfied with the Draft Instruments that were tendered before the Tribunal.

43Counsel for the City explained five core issues that formed the basis of the City’s opposition to the Application, which had now been resolved.

44Concerns with traffic management policies with respect to pedestrian and vehicular connectivity with the surrounding areas. Counsel for the City noted that the City had not called its transportation expert as these issues were resolved through a future draft plan condition. He noted that the City did not have any internal interior concerns with respect to traffic management.

45The second concern was that the Application did not comply with infrastructure policies with respect to stormwater management. Counsel for the City noted that the City had not called its engineering expert, and that any concerns it had were addressed through the inclusion of holding provisions regarding wastewater capacity and adjustments to the DPOS.

46The third issue was with respect to the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”). Counsel for the City stated that the Applicant had made significant updates to its EIA which demonstrated no negative impacts. Counsel for the City noted that the City had not called its natural heritage witness and had no contrary evidence on this point.

47Mr. Toman explained that through the proposed OPA the wetland in the South Lands would be removed from the mapping and that the Applicant’s EIS had concluded that there would be no impacts with the removal of that feature. He also noted that ZBLA 2 included holding provisions with respect to the removal of this feature, if required, and found that it was “adequately worded” to meet the intent of the relevant policies.

48The fourth issue was the City’s concern that the proposed development did not possess an appropriate distribution of density with respect to building forms. Counsel for the City explained that the blocks and design of the DPOS had been revised and was now supported by City experts. The City was satisfied that the inclusion of tower separation and maximum podium heights had addressed its concerns.

49On this fourth issue, Mr. Toman noted that the ZBLA 1 will not have a maximum density limit; however, the ZBLA will include provisions to prevent over-development – including urban design guidelines with respect to tower separation and establishing a maximum height of six storeys for the podiums. In his opinion, this would reduce the number of units on the North Lands and help prevent overdevelopment of the site. He was satisfied with the changes made to the OPA and ZBLA 1 to address this.

50The last issue was the concern that there was a lack of a viable framework for long term transition of abutting properties. Counsel for the City stated that any concerns of its planner and engineering expert had been addressed in the Draft Instruments and it had no contrary evidence on this point.

51Mr. Toman also provided comments that the Application complied with the suitability of lands for subdivision and that there was no raised flags with respect to the adequacy of schools in the area to accommodate the increase in population. That the sustainability policies of the OPA were addressed in the ZBLAs including increased requirements for landscaped areas and reduction of surface parking.

52Mr. Toman summarized his position by opining that the Draft Instruments had merit, were consistent with and conformed with applicable policy documents.

POSITION OF THE NEC

53The NEC entered into Minutes of Settlement with the Applicant which were entered as Exhibit 7, during the hearing.

54Counsel for the NEC had no questions for Mr. Tchisler or Mr. Toman, and instead made a statement during closing submissions. The NEC’s concerns with this Application were narrow and concerned building heights and their visual impacts on the Escarpment. The NEC’s resolution with the Applicant provided, in the view of the NEC, a good balance and provided the Applicant with as much flexibility as possible but allowed the NEC to review proposals and identify potential impacts and allow additional mitigation measures where identified.

FINDINGS

55In reaching a decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), as well as the position taken by the municipality and the information considered by it, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act. In addition, s. 51(24) of the Planning Act lists a number of matters that regard must be had for when considering a DPOS.

56With respect to s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest in accordance with s. 2, especially such matters that encourage the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, that are designed to be sustainable, in an area with access to existing community facilities, public transit, and that will facilitate housing in the form of townhouses, mid-rise and high-rise as well as retirement and long-term care homes. Given the fact that the City Council endorsed the proposed OPA in April 2023, that the evidence provided by Mr. Tchisler to the Tribunal was not opposed by Counsel for the City or the NEC and CH, the Tribunal has considered the position taken by the municipality and the information considered by it, pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Act.

57Although the isolated wetland feature located in the North Lands is to be removed rather than preserved. The Tribunal is satisfied that satisfactory measures will be undertaken to replace this feature on lands owned by the Hamilton Naturalists Club. CH support of this relocation is noted.

58Section 51(24) of the Act lists a number of matters that regard must be had for when considering a DPOS. The Tribunal finds that the DPOS lands are suitable for residential development at medium and high densities and that the DPOS will facilitate the creation of a variety of housing which will provide a range of housing opportunities. The area surrounding the Subject Lands contains commercial and employment uses, and the planned transit upgrades will benefit present and future inhabitants. Furthermore, the proposed DPOS will have access to the surrounding road network and will maintain an appropriate layout with respect to the surrounding development and road patterns.

59The Tribunal finds that the Draft Instruments are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, NEA, and the UHOP.

ORDER

60THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed and Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05 – 200 and Flamborough Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z are hereby amended as set out in Attachments ‘1’ and ‘2’ to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Hamilton to assign numbers to these by-laws for record keeping purposes.

61THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Applicant’s Official Plan Amendment for the Urban Hamilton Official Plan is amended as set out in Attachment ‘3’ to the Order.

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Applicant’s Subdivision Appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act is allowed in principle, and that the Draft Plan of Subdivision dated June 21, 2023, surveyed by Ron Querubin, Ontario Land Surveyor, and prepared by MHBC, set out in Attachment ‘4’ to this Order is approved subject to the imposition of Conditions that may be required by the City of Hamilton.

“G.A. Croser”

G.A. CROSER 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

CITY OF HAMILTON

BY-LAW NO. 23- xxx

To Amend Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z (Flamborough), Respecting Identified with PINs 17563-0375, 17563-0382, 17563-0399, 17563-0400, in the Former Town of Flamborough, now in the City of Hamilton

WHEREAS the City of Hamilton Act. 1999, Statutes of Ontario, 1999 Chap.14, Sch. C. did incorporate, as of January 1st, 2001, the municipality “City of Hamilton”;

AND WHEREAS the City of Hamilton is the successor to certain area municipalities, including the former area municipality known as "The Corporation of the Town of Flamborough" and is the successor to the former regional municipality, namely, “The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth”;

AND WHEREAS the City of Hamilton Act, 1999 provides that the Zoning By-laws of the former area municipalities continue in force in the City of Hamilton until subsequently amended or repealed by the Council of the City of Hamilton;

AND WHEREAS Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z (Flamborough) was enacted on the 5th day of November 1990, and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on the 21st day of December, 1992; A

AND WHEREAS this By-law will be in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, upon finalization of Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. XX.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Hamilton enacts as follows:

1. That Schedule "A-X", attached to and forming part of Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z (Flamborough), as amended, is hereby amended by changing the zoning from District Commercial (C6, 326, H92) Zone, Holding, Modified to High Density Residential “R8-xxx(H1, H2, H3)” Zone, Holding for lands the extent and boundaries of which are shown on Schedule “A” attached to this by-law.

2. Section 13 – High Density Residential Zone of Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z (Flamborough), as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following Subsection:

13.3.x “R8-xxx (H1, H2, H3)”

Permitted Uses:

(a) Uses permitted in Subsection 13.1 (b) Retirement Home (c) Long Term Care Home (d) Maisonette (e) Stacked Townhouse (f) Townhouse (g) Street Townhouse, on the same lot as an Apartment Building, Maisonette, Stacked Townhouse or Townhouse (h) Existing Uses (i) Public Park (j) On the ground floor of a use identified in (a) through (c) above and only in the area shown on Figure 2: a. Day Nursery b. Financial Institution c. Office d. Personal Service Establishment e. Restaurant – Standard, Convenience, or Fast Food f. Retail Establishment g. Service Shop

Zone Provisions:

i. Apartment Building, Stacked Townhouse, Retirement Home, Long Term Care Home, Existing Uses

(a) Lot Area (minimum) 300 square metres

(b) Lot Frontage (minimum) 12 metres

(c) Height (i) Minimum (ii) Maximum 10 metres and 3 storeys In accordance with Figure 1

(d) Lot Coverage (maximum) 60% for lots 1 hectare and greater (N/A for lots less than 1 hectare)

(e) Front Yard (minimum) 4 metres

(f) Rear Yard (minimum) 7.5 metres

(g) Interior Yard (minimum) 3 metres

(h) Exterior Yard (minimum) 4 metres

(i) Planting Strip (minimum) 3 metres across all lot lines adjacent to a street

(j) Landscape Open Space (minimum) 15% of lot area

(k) Density (maximum) N/A

(l) Total Amenity Area (minimum) - Apartment Building, Stacked Townhouse 6 square metres per dwelling unit

(m) Surface Parking (maximum) - Apartment Building, Stacked Townhouse, Retirement Home,, Long Term Care Home the greater of 25% of parking spaces or 25% of lot area

(n) For the purposes of this by-law, Surface Parking shall be defined as parking spaces located at grade and outside of a building. Surface Parking shall include the drive aisle directly abutting each parking space.

(o) Additional regulations for Apartment Buildings: i. Maximum podium height at the street line shall be 6 storeys. ii. Minimum separation distance between towers shall be 30 metres.

(p) General Provisions – in accordance with the provision of Section 5 and as modified by above and in subsection iii. below.

ii. Street Townhouse, Townhouse and Maisonette:

(a) Lot Area (minimum) 50.0 square metres

(b) Lot Frontage (minimum) All uses excluding Street Townhouses with individual driveways leading to the front of the unit from a public road Street Townhouses with individual driveways leading to the front of the unit from a public road 5 metres 6 metres

(c) Height (i) Minimum (ii) Maximum 9 metres and 3 storeys In accordance with Figure 1

(d) Lot Coverage (minimum) 60% for lots 1 hectare and greater (N/A for lots less than 1 hectare)

(e) Front Yard (minimum) 3 metres

(f) Rear Yard (minimum) 6 metres (0 metres where rear yard is related to the common wall of the dwelling unit)

(g) Interior Side Yard (minimum) 1.2 metres (0 metres where side yard is related to the common wall of the dwelling unit)

(h) Exterior Yard (minimum) 3.0 metres

(i) Planting Strip (minimum) – Townhouse, Maisonette 3 metres across all lot lines adjacent to a street

(j) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) – Townhouse, Maisonette 15% of lot area

(k) Density (maximum) N/A

(l) Amenity Area (minimum) (i) Maisonette (ii) Townhouse, Street Townhouse 4 square metres per dwelling unit 20 square metres per dwelling unit

(m) General Provisions – in accordance with the provision of Section 5 and as modified by above and in subsection iii. below.

iii. The following additional provision apply to all uses within the R8-xxx zone:

a. Section 5.4.2 - Dwelling Unit Area (minimum), shall not apply b. Maximum building height shall be inclusive of all mechanical penthouses and elevator penthouses. c. Section 5.13.1 and 5.13.2 – Loading requirements, shall not apply. d. The location of any loading doors and associated loading facilities shall be subject to the following: i. Shall not be permitted in any yard abutting a street, except where screened from street view by a Visual Barrier ii. for the purposes of this clause, a Visual Barrier shall be a minimum height of 1.8 m and consist of the following:

1. a wall / fence, provided it is not taller than 2.5 m or located within 3 m of a street line;
2. A continuous planting of suitable trees or shrubs, together with a reserved width of planting area appropriate for healthy plant growth;
3. Earth berms; or,
4. Any combination of the above.

e. Notwithstanding Subsection 5.21.1:

Apartment Building, Stacked Townhouse 1 space per dwelling unit

Street Townhouse, Townhouse and Maisonette 1 space per dwelling unit

Retirement Home, Long Term Care Home 1 for each 3 persons accommodated or designed for accommodation.

Day Nursery 1 for each 125.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use.

Financial Establishment 1 for each 30.0 square metres of gross floor area, which accommodates such use.

Office i) 0 where a use is less than 450.0 square metres in gross floor area; and, ii) 1 for each 30.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use, for that portion of a building that is in excess of 450.0 square metres.

Personal Service i) 0 where a use is less than 450.0 square metres in gross floor area; and, ii) 1 for each 16.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use, for that portion of a building that is in excess of 450.0 square metres.

Service Shop 1 for each 30.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates the Office, Retail, and Showroom component of the use.

Restaurant i) 0 where a use is less than 450.0 square metres in gross floor area; and, ii) 1 for each 50.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use for that portion of a building that is in excess of 450.0 square metres.

Retail i) 0 where a use is less than 450.0 square metres in gross floor area; ii) 1 for each 17.0 square metres any gross floor area between 450.0 square metres and 4,000.0 square metres; and, iii) 1 for each 50.0 square metres of gross floor area greater than 4,000.0 square metres.

f. Location of Surface Parking: i. For all uses except Street Townhouse, parking shall not be located between the façade and the front lot line or between the façade and flankage lot line and shall not be within 3.0 metres of a street line. Visitor parking may be permitted between the façade and a street provided that no more than 50% of the front yard shall be used for visitor parking and access to such parking. ii. Notwithstanding anything in this by-law, parking for Street Townhouses with individual driveways leading to the front of the unit from a public road is permitted in the front yard and shall be a minimum width of 2.7 metres and maximum width of 6 metres or 50% of the lot width, whichever is lesser. An adjacent walkway shall also be permitted.

g. Notwithstanding Provision 5.21.6 (b), a two-way driveway shall have a minimum unobstructed width of not less than 6 metres.

h. Existing Uses shall not be subject to minimum height provisions.

i. Notwithstanding anything in this by-law, Street Townhouses shall not compose more than 50% of the frontage of any one street located within the R8-xxx zone, measured between the two closest intersections of two different streets, the two closest vertices of the same street which is angled or a between the closest vertex and intersection, as applicable. Street Townhouses are not permitted in the location shown on Figure 2.

j. For apartment buildings, a minimum of 100 square metres of the required amenity area shall be provided in a common amenity area.

k. Above grade structured parking shall be permitted within Apartment Buildings, Retirement Homes and Long Term Care Homes provided that: i. At the grade level, the public street fronting portions of the structured parking are blocked from street view with other uses within the same building which may include lobby areas, dwelling units, commercial uses, amenity rooms, utility rooms and other such elements standard to normal functioning of the building; and, ii. All facades of the structured parking which are public facing, shall include decorative architectural elements.

l. Surface parking areas of Apartment Buildings, Retirement Homes and Long Term Care Homes shall require Landscaped Parking Islands as follows: i. One Landscaped Parking Island shall be provided within a surface parking area for every 20 surface parking spaces proposed. ii. Landscaped Parking Island shall mean a portion of land with a minimum area of 10 square metres located within a surface parking area for the purposes of growing trees. Landscaped Parking Islands may also include other plantings and be combined with walkways. iii. The minimum number of required parking spaces shall be reduced by the number of Landscaped Parking Islands provided up to a maximum of 10% of the required parking spaces.

m. For the purposes of this by-law, “Retirement Home” means a retirement home as defined in the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.

n. For the purposes of this by-law, “Long-Term Care Home” means a long-term care home as defined in the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021.

o. General Provisions – In accordance with the provisions of Section 5, except as otherwise specified above.

iv. (H1) Holding Symbol

a. This Holding Symbol shall not be removed for the lands within the R8-xxx zone, or part thereof, until the following conditions are met for such lands: i. Arrangements are made for the provision of an active transportation connection across Borer’s Creek on public property between the area zoned R8-xxx and Medicorum Place. ii. Permission is received from Conservation Halton prior to undertaking any development within Conservation Halton’s regulated area, if applicable. iii. For development beyond 1,340 units:

1. Confirmation that, after the addition of the vehicles attributable to the proposed development, a satisfactory level of vehicular service will be achieved within the adjacent road network or if not, improvements are been made, to the satisfaction of the City, to achieve a satisfactory level of vehicular service; and,
2. The extension of Leavitt Boulevard from Dundas Street East to Horseshoe Crescent, west of Clappison Avenue occurs or alternative improvements to the adjacent road network have been made in order to achieve a satisfactory level of vehicular service to the area zoned R8-xxx inclusive of vehicles from the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the City. iv. In addition to iii. above, for development beyond 2,325 persons, determination that there is sufficient capacity within the wastewater system to accommodate the proposed development.

b. Notwithstanding a.iii. above, this Holding Symbol can be removed from the lands associated with the first 1,340 residential units, including associated commercial uses within the same building as said units, provided that conditions i. and ii. above, have been satisfied, subject to c. below.

c. Notwithstanding a.iv. above, this Holding Symbol can be removed from the lands associated with the first 2,325 persons, including associated commercial uses within the same building as said units, provided that conditions i. and ii. above have been satisfied, subject to b. above.

d. This Holding Symbol shall not apply to Existing Uses, including any proposed alteration, expansion and addition to thereof.

v. (H2) Holding Symbol

a. This Holding Symbol shall only be applicable to the areas identified on Figure 1 and only for buildings greater than 47.9 metres.

b. This Holding Symbol shall not be removed from the lands shown on Figure 1, or portions thereof, until such time as a Visual Impact Assessment is submitted to the satisfaction of the City.

vi. (H3) Holding Symbol

a. This Holding Symbol shall only be applicable to the areas identified on Figure 1 and only for buildings greater than 60.3 metres.

b. This Holding Symbol shall not be removed from the lands shown on Figure 1, or portions thereof, until such time as a Visual Impact Assessment is submitted to the satisfaction of the City.

vii. Figure 1 for Zone R8-xxx – Maximum Building Heights

viii. Figure 2 for Zone R8-xxx – Commercial and Street Townhouse Permissions

3. That the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.

4. That this by-law shall come into force and be deemed to come into force in accordance with Sub-section 34(21) of the Planning Act, either upon the date of passage of this By-law or as otherwise provided by the said Sub-section.

PASSED this XX day of month, 2023.

A. Horwath R. Caterini Mayor City Cler

Schedule A to By-law 23-xxx