Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 17, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004111
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a Decision
Description: To permit a residential subdivision
Reference Number: D14122
Property Address: 452 Raglan Street
Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004111
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004111
OLT Case Name: Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc. v. Collingwood (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit a residential subdivision
Reference Number: D1201122
Property Address: 452 Raglan Street
Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004112
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004111
Heard: July 24, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc.
Leo Longo
Town of Collingwood
Tom Sanderson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY s. dixon ON JULY 24, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from an appeal filed by Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to Sections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (“Act”), concerning Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) applications (together, “Applications”) to permit a residential subdivision in the Town of Collingwood (“Town”) on lands known municipally as 452 Raglan Street (“Subject Lands”).
2Subsequent to the Appeal, the Town held a public meeting to gather input on the Applications from members of the public. Several Participant Statements were also filed with the Tribunal by individuals that were granted Participant Status at a previous Case Management Conference. The combined input from the public and Participants was used by the Appellant and the Town to revise the Applications – and in particular, the Draft Plan conditions – leading to a settlement between the Parties.
3In support of the settlement, the Tribunal was in receipt of a sworn Affidavit from Kory Chisholm (retained by the Appellant), which was marked as Exhibit 1. Mr. Chisholm is a Partner with MHBC Planning Limited and a Registered Professional Planner. He has been qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence on matters pertaining to land use planning on numerous occasions.
4At the Hearing, Mr. Chisholm provided oral evidence with reference to Exhibit 1, including an overview of the Subject Lands and surrounding context, the proposed development facilitated by the revised Applications (including revisions made in response to public and Participant input), his planning analysis, and his summary recommendations.
SITE AND AREA CONTEXT
5The Subject Lands are comprised of approximately 8.99 hectares (“ha”) of vacant land in the southeast of the Town’s designated settlement area. The Subject Lands are generally bounded by low-density residential development to the north, natural areas associated with the Pretty River and lands designated for employment uses to the east, a wooded area and lands designated residential to the south, and the Clearview Collingwood Rail Trail (“Rail Trail”) to the west (beyond which is a stormwater pond and elementary school associated with low-density residential development).
6Currently, access to the Subject Lands is provided via an existing private driveway from Raglan Street, which includes an existing bridge that crosses the Pretty River. The existing bridge has been deemed unsafe for continued use and as such, is proposed to be reconstructed by the Town as a future pedestrian bridge. Access to the Subject Lands and the proposed subdivision will occur via the extensions of Williams Street and Peel Street to the north, and Kirby Avenue to the west. All three of those access points are municipal roads with current road stubs contemplating their extension into the Subject Lands.
PROPOSAL
7The revised Applications will facilitate the development of:
128 residential units, comprised of 20 single detached houses and 108 townhouses;
A 0.19 ha stormwater management block adjacent to the natural areas west of the Pretty River;
A 0.29 ha Rail Trail widening and 0.22 ha park abutting same, representing an overall parkland dedication of 8.08 per cent;
2.89 ha of additional open space, including an open space block containing the future pedestrian bridge over the Pretty River; and
Four new public streets, including the aforementioned road extensions.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
8Mr. Chisholm proffered that the proposed development, supported by the revised ZBA and Draft Plan:
a) Includes dedicated blocks for environmental protection and open space purposes;
b) Provides an efficient street network and will be serviced with municipal water and wastewater services;
c) Is located within an existing built-up area and contributes to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities by being a logical extension and additional build-out of the existing built-up area;
d) Provides a range of housing types;
e) Is in an area that is designated for residential growth and development under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”), the County of Simcoe Official Plan (“COP”), and the Town Official Plan (“TOP”);
f) Is designed to be sustainable through a compact and efficient grid road pattern, compact lot fabric and the introduction of smaller ground-oriented units, located within proximity to public transit, and oriented to pedestrians through both the streetscape and various Rail Trail connections;
g) Is well designed and encourages a sense of place by maintaining existing natural features and characteristics; and
h) Provides public spaces that are high quality, safe, attractive and vibrant through the proposed public streetscape, park and Rail Trail widening.
9Based on the foregoing and the detailed analysis provided in Exhibit 1, it is Mr. Chisholm’s opinion that the revised ZBA and Draft Plan have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and the subdivision criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act; are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; conform with the Growth Plan; and conform with the COP and TOP. In Mr. Chisholm’s opinion, the revised ZBA and Draft Plan represent good planning and are in the public interest.
FINDINGS
10On the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Chisholm, the Tribunal finds that the revised Applications satisfy all statutory tests as referenced above, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.
ORDER
11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed in part and Zoning By-law No. 2010-040 of the Town of Collingwood is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorises the municipal clerk of the Town of Collingwood to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act is allowed in part and the Draft Plan of Subdivision shown on Attachment 2 to this Order is approved, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Collingwood shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the Draft Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“S. Dixon”
S. DIXON
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
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3