Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 1, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004799
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Leverton Developments Inc.
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment
Description:
To permit construction of two-and-a-half storey, six-unit apartment building
Property Address:
51403 Ron McNeil Line
Municipality/UT:
Malahide/Elgin
Municipal File No.:
D14-Z10-22
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004799
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004799
OLT Case Name:
Leverton Developments Inc. v. Malahide (Town)
Heard:
June 7, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Leverton Developments Inc.
Analee Baroudi
Township of Malahide
Thomas Sanderson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Bobka ON June 7, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement Hearing regarding an appeal by Leverton Developments Inc. (“Applicant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) for the refusal of an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) by the Township of Malahide (“Township”) to permit a two-and-a-half storey, six-unit apartment building for the property municipally known as 51403 Ron McNeil Line (“Subject Property”).
2The proposed settlement would rezone the property from 'Village Residential 1' (VR1) to 'Village Residential 1 Special Provision (VR1-5)' and proposes a site specific provision for a reduced front yard depth of 3 metres (“m”), whereas 6 m is required. The use as an apartment building is already permitted on the property.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
3In making a decision on the ZBA before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and that it conforms to the applicable Official Plans. In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and in general, regard for the related decisions of the municipality and be satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.
HEARING
4The Tribunal received and marked the following:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service (previously marked)
Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Mathew Campbell
5In support of the settlement, the Applicant called Mathew Campbell, a Land Use Planner, who provided a sworn Affidavit as well as oral testimony. Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Campbell to provide opinion evidence in the discipline of land use planning.
6Mr. Campbell explained that while three Zoning By-law Amendments were requested in the original application, two of those (one to permit the use, one to permit the height) were resolved as a result of discussion with the Township and a reduction in the height of the proposal. The amendment, which went before Township Council, was to permit a minimum front yard depth of 1 m, whereas 6 m is required. That application was denied by Township Council on October 20, 2023 and that decision was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal. As a result of the settlement, the Planner highlighted that the proposal now before the Tribunal is to permit a 3 m minimum front yard depth.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
7The Subject Property is currently vacant and the lot has a frontage of approximately 24.7 m (81 feet) along Ron McNeil Line, a depth of 38.8 m (127 feet) and an area of approximately 0.1ha (0.25 acre).
8The Subject Property is within:
an older, established residential neighbourhood … characterized by low-density single and semi-detached dwellings, with the majority of dwellings being on large lots with ample landscaped area … Surrounding land uses are comprised primarily of low-density residential uses, but also include institutional (Springfield Public School), commercial services (Rona), community services (Malahide Fire Services, Malahide Community Place), and agricultural lands. (Exhibit 2, paragraphs [12-14])
9The Subject Property is:
designated as “Tier 1 Settlement Area” per “Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use” in the Elgin County Official Plan (“COP”);
designated “Residential” per “Schedule ‘B’ – Land Use and Constraints” in the Township of Malahide Official Plan (“OP”); and,
zoned “Village Residential One (VR1)” in the Township’s Zoning By-law No. 18-22 (“ZBL”).
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10Regarding s. 2 of the Act, it was Mr. Campbell’s opinion that the proposal had regard to matters of provincial interest, specifically s. 2 (h) relating to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, as it proposes development in an area which is already planned for residential development.
11In terms of the PPS, Mr. Campbell identified that the proposed ZBA was consistent, as it:
supports a development pattern that is compact considering the existing settlement pattern, cost effective, and efficient to minimize land consumption and reduce servicing costs and is consistent with PPS policy 1.1.3.4 relating to appropriate development standards. (Exhibit 2, paragraph [31])
12In relation to the COP, Mr. Campbell opined that the proposal was generally consistent with the policies of the COP, specifically as it contributes to residential intensification in an area with existing infrastructure.
13With regard to the OP, Mr. Campbell was of the opinion that the proposal is in conformity as it:
features a contemporary design with street-facing balconies which will enhance the quality of the area and the streetscape (per policies 3.3.2(b) and 4.4.2.7(c));
is in an appropriate location with appropriate massing in relation to the existing adjacent properties (per policy 3.3.2(d));
would allow for street infilling featuring a consistent building line and setback as is found in the surrounding areas (per policy 4.1.4.2(d)(ii)); and,
would have a negligible effect in terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic generation in the area (per policy 4.4.2.7(c)).
14Regarding the ZBL, Mr. Campbell explained that the zoning generally permits the proposed development, with the exception of the 3 m minimum front yard depth. It was his evidence that the Parties are in agreement that the revised conceptual plan (with consideration of the 3 m minimum front yard depth) is in compliance with the zoning regulations.
15Though not put forward in a formal Participant statement, Mr. Campbell spoke to the concerns raised by neighbours regarding height, privacy, water supply, increased traffic and parking. It was his overall opinion that the proposal had considered the relevant concerns and was appropriate.
16In conclusion, it was Mr. Campbell’s professional opinion that the ZBA application has regard to matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the applicable OPs. It was his overall opinion that the proposal is appropriate, representative of good land use planning and is in the public interest.
FINDINGS
17The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence and testimony of Mr. Campbell and finds that the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the applicable OPs as it:
efficiently and appropriately uses land and contributes to the mix of housing types and density in the neighbourhood;
will be compatible with and will maintain the character of the surrounding area;
~~• ~~is located in a settlement area; and,
- features a proposed front yard setback which is consistent with the surrounding area and meets the purpose and intent of the ZBL.
18The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and in general, regard for the related decision of the municipality, and is satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest. Specifically, it will feature gentle intensification in a suitable location, utilize existing servicing and contribute to the range of housing options. Further, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement has reduced the impact on the surrounding properties by increasing the front yard depth from the originally requested 1 m to 3 m.
19As a result of the foregoing, the Tribunal will approve the proposed ZBA.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, in part, and By-law No. 18-22 of the Township of Malahide is hereby amended, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Malahide to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
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