Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE:

October 18, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-003948

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

Applicant/Appellant:

Minto Communities Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment seeks to permit an 18-storey mixed-use building on the lands known as 1186, 1188, 1194 Wellington Street West

Reference Number:

D01-01-21-0011

Property Address:

1186-1194 Wellington Street West

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003948

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-003948

OLT Case Name:

Minto Communities Inc. v. Ottawa (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant:

Minto Communities Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision

Reference Number:

D02-02-21-0062

Property Address:

1186-1194 Wellington Street West

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003949

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-003948

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

Minto Communities Inc.

Subject:

Site Plan

Reference Number:

D07-12-22-00105

Property Address:

1186-1194 Wellington Street West

Municipality/UT:

Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-004708

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-003948

Heard:

August 14 to 21, 2023 by Video Hearing

Parties

Counsel

City of Ottawa

G. Schromm

Minto Communities Inc.

M. Flowers

H. Ruby (Articling Student)

Suncor Energy Products Partnership

K. Sutton

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

1The matter before the Tribunal was the Hearing of the Merits for the Appeals under sections 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) by Minto Communities Inc. (the “Applicant” or “Minto”) for the failure of the City of Ottawa (“City”) to make a decision on a request to make an amendment to the Official Plan (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) for the properties municipally known as 1186 – 1194 Wellington Street West (the “Subject Site” or “Subject Lands”).

2The Applicant proposes to develop the Subject Site with a 16-storey, mixed use building that includes ground floor commercial spaces and 212 residential dwelling units. In order to do this, the Applicant has requested a ZBLA to zone the Subject Site in its entirety to Traditional Mainstreet Zone. The Applicant is also requesting a site-specific exemption to the Wellington Street West Secondary Plan.

3The Tribunal was informed that Suncor Energy Products Partnership had resolved any issues with the Applicant that they had, and requested to be excused from the Hearing.

EXHIBITS

4The following exhibits had been filed with the Tribunal. Note that Exhibit 1 – the Notice of Hearing, had been filed at a previous Case Management Conference.

• Exhibit 2 – Revised Joint Document Book
• Exhibit 3 – Section 11 of the City Official Plan
• Exhibit 4 – Joint Book of Witnesses
• Exhibit 5 – Minto Visuals
• Exhibit 6 – City Visuals
• Exhibit 7 – City Photos

WITNESSES

5On consent of the Parties, two experts in land-use planning had been qualified to give expert opinion evidence. Paul Black for Minto, and Allan Ramsay for the City.

SITE CONTEXT

6The Subject Lands are situated in the Hintonburg neighbourhood of the City and cover the entire block on the south side of Wellington Street West, bordered by Parkdale Avenue to the east and Hamilton Avenue North to the west. The Subject Lands are now known as 1186 Wellington Street West.

7The Tribunal was informed that the Subject Lands have a frontage of 63.5 metres along Wellington Street West, 39.3 metres along Hamilton Avenue North, and 35.2 metres along Parkdale Avenue, resulting in a total site area of approximately 2,497 square metres.

8At the northwest corner of the Subject Lands, there is a building that was formerly known as the Elmdale Theatre, featuring a flat roof and marquee structure around the corner of the building along Wellington Street West and Hamilton Avenue North. The building is currently listed on the City Heritage Register.

9On the north side of Wellington Street West, across from the Subject Lands, there is a Petro-Canada gas station and other low-rise retail buildings. Further north is the Parkdale Market site and Parkdale Park. The property immediately south of the public laneway is a church and an associated surface parking lot. To the west of the Subject Lands is the Wellington Street West main street, generally characterized by low-rise retail buildings. A secondary node of higher density development exists at the corner of Wellington Street West and Holland Avenue.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Proposed Development of the Subject Lands

10Mr. Black informed the Tribunal that the proposed building is currently a 16-storey (53.4 metres) mixed-use building. It consists of approximately 212 residential dwelling units and has a total gross floor area of 13,824 square metres. The ground floor includes 1,162 square metres of retail space, which is situated along Wellington Street West and extends around onto Hamilton Avenue North.

11Mr. Black stated that the proposed building features a 16-storey high-rise with a podium stepping down to four and one storey along different street frontages to transition to adjacent low-rise buildings. The development includes public and private communal spaces, a streetscape concept approach, and an urban plaza at the northeast corner. It also provides outdoor amenity space, resident and visitor parking, and bicycle parking. The proposed building height was reduced from 18 to 16 storeys, and other modifications were made in response to the feedback the Applicant had received.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”)

12It was the evidence of Mr. Black that the proposed development conforms to the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”). He proceeded to take the Tribunal through the various policies providing his expert opinion.

13In the expert opinion of Mr. Black, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS by intensifying a property within an inner urban area with existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The development supports and encourages active transportation and transit, and is within walking distance of a rapid transit station and located on a designated Transit Priority Corridor. It also supports the efficient usage of existing and planned transportation infrastructure and provides opportunities for walking, cycling, and transit usage. The proposed development seeks to minimize vehicle trips, promote a mix of uses, and contributes to the range of housing available within the neighbourhood.

14Additionally, Mr. Black informed the Tribunal that the proposed development optimizes the use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities, and enhances the vitality of the main street. The proposed development also retains and reinstates elements of a building on the heritage register, maintaining a landmark along Wellington Street West. Finally, the planning authorities shall support energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate through land use and development patterns.

15Mr. Black, as a land use planning expert, believes that the proposed development complies with the PPS, specifically with the policies outlined in sections 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.3, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1 (b), (c), and (e), and 1.8.1 (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g).

16In contrast, Mr. Ramsay stated the PPS provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest regarding land use planning in Ontario. According to section 3(5)(a) of the Act, all decisions of planning authorities that affect a planning matter must be consistent with the PPS.

17It was the expert opinion of Mr. Ramsay that the proposed development of the Subject Site for a mixed-use building will generally improve the vitality and viability of the main street area. However, he stated that because of the Traditional Mainstreet and Mainstreet Corridor policies and the Wellington Secondary Plans, the scale, massing, and height of the proposed development is out of character with the planned context of the area. It is his opinion that a mixed-use development is more in keeping with the planned context for the area and would enhance the vitality and viability of the area.

City Official Plan (“OP”)

Scale, Massing and Height

18The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Black that the Subject Lands are located at the corner of Wellington Street West and Parkdale Avenue. The immediate context of the Subject Lands includes various land uses and building types and heights. Mr. Black stated that the proposed development has been sensitively designed to integrate into the scale, massing, and height that exists today and is planned for Wellington Street West in the future. The high-rise component on the corner redistributes the permitted 9- storey density on the Subject Lands into a podium and tower form, resulting in a better design for the site and a better transition.

19It was the expert opinion of Mr. Black that the scale, massing and height of the proposed development is appropriate to the existing and planned neighbourhood.

Compatibility and Transition between Low and High Rise Development

20Mr. Black provided the Tribunal the opinion that the proposed development meets the urban design objectives and compatibility criteria outlined in Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the City Official Plan (“OP”). The OP promotes residential intensification that harmonizes with existing built-up areas and defines compatible development as one that enhances and coexists with existing structures without causing undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The Tribunal was informed that the proposed development fits well and functions well within its surroundings.

21Section 2.5.1 outlines the Design Objectives of the OP, illustrated through seven (7) qualitative statements. Mr. Black stated, in his witness statement, that the Design Objectives of this Plan are as follows:

1. to enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity;

2. to define quality public and private spaces through development;

3. to create places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to, and move through;

4. to ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas;

5. to consider adaptability and diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time and that are characterized by variety and choice;

6. to understand and respect natural processes and features in development design; and,

7. to maximize energy-efficiency and promote sustainable design to reduce the resource consumption, energy use, and carbon footprint of the built environment.

22Policy 2.5.1.4, was highlighted to the Tribunal by Mr. Black. He informed the Tribunal that the proposed development was reviewed by the City’s Urban Design Review Panel (“UDRP”) during one (1) informal and two (2) formal meetings. The proposed development aims to enhance the Traditional Mainstreet character and function of Wellington Street West by incorporating active, at-grade uses and adding residential densities to support existing commercial uses and amenities. The design features a six-storey podium and a high-rise tower, both designed to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The development includes public and private spaces, communal amenity areas, and private balconies for residents. It also focuses on improving the pedestrian environment, consolidating vehicular access, and incorporating sustainable and green building features. It is the understanding of Mr. Black that the developer plans to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) certification and include sustainability features such as electric vehicle charging stations and LED fixtures.

23With regard to Policy 4.11.5 Mr. Black stated that new buildings are required to be designed and situated in a way that is compatible with adjacent uses and development scales.

24In his opinion, the proposed development achieves compatibility through setbacks, varied building heights, and transition. The 16-storey tower, located in the northeast corner of the Subject Lands, near the Wellington Street West and Parkdale Avenue intersection, is farthest away from the low-rise residential uses along Hamilton Avenue. The tower sits atop a six-storey podium that steps down to four storeys and then one storey along Hamilton Avenue North.

25The Tribunal was informed that proposed development would consist of a tower that is 27.6 metres from the nearest low-rise residential lot and generally respects a 45-degree angular plane drawn from the northeast corner of the lot towards the tower. A small portion of the upper floors are within the angular plane. The tower also provides ample separation from the other nearby mid- and high-rise buildings to the east and south.

26Mr. Black indicated that the proposed development's facades facing the public realm achieve compatibility through the integration of several design interventions. Along Wellington Street West, the materiality and setbacks above the first and sixth floor respond to existing and planned building heights and setbacks, particularly, the adjacent mixed-use buildings along the Mainstreet. The setbacks and articulation along the Hamilton Avenue North facade ensure an appropriate transition to the low-rise neighbourhood to the south, while the four-storey podium along Parkdale is appropriate for the arterial roadway.

27According to Mr. Black's expert opinion, all the facades have been designed with a high degree of architectural detail to create visual interest. The proposed 16-storey tower achieves this through setbacks, varied heights, and transitions. The facades facing the public realm have been carefully designed to integrate several interventions, with a high degree of architectural detail for visual interest.

28In Mr. Black's evidence, Policy 4.11.7 specifies that intersections of arterial and collector roads can act as gateways and support high levels of pedestrian traffic as well as dense housing. Development proposals at these locations are encouraged to incorporate strong architectural design elements that highlight the corner, take advantage of design possibilities for both street facades, and include soft landscaping, special paving materials, and larger sidewalks.

29The proposed development is situated at the intersection of two arterial roads, serving as a gateway into the Hintonburg community. The proposed development highlights the corner through a notched podium, providing more space at ground level and positioning a retail unit entrance at the corner. Additionally, the proposed design extends the materials used along Wellington Street West around all four sides of the building, creating a high-quality appearance on all facades. Lastly, the proposed building utilizes a '360-degree' landscape design to enhance all four public edges with street trees, paving treatments, benches, and lighting, thus improving the public realm.

30In accordance to Policy 4.11.11, a Shadow Analysis and Wind Analysis was completed to evaluate the potential impacts of a proposed development on adjacent properties and pedestrian amenity areas. Mr. Black stated that the shadow study conducted showed minimal impact on Parkdale Park during the shoulder seasons, with longer shadows impacting the park in December. The Pedestrian Level Wind Study concluded that the conditions at-grade surrounding the proposed development will generally be at an acceptable comfort level.

31Mr. Black highlighted Policy 4.11.15 that outlines high-rise buildings should consist of three integrated parts (a base, a middle, and a top) and should respect the scale, proportion, and character of the surroundings. The tower should step back from the base when possible, and floor plates may vary depending on the uses and the context. Mr. Black opined that the proposed development includes a distinct base, middle, and top to ensure that the building respects the at-grade and low-rise scale and character of the low-rise residential uses to the south. The placement of the tower has been assessed to mitigate impacts from shadowing, overlook, and loss of sky views to those properties.

32With consideration to Policy 4.11.17, Mr. Black indicated that the proposed high-rise building deviates from the Zoning By-law in terms of setback distance, but it has been demonstrated that the impacts can be avoided or reduced. The proposed tower meets the required separation distances from neighbouring buildings, and its location and design provide sufficient separation from potential high-rise buildings in the area and therefore is appropriate.

33Policy 4.11.18 states that the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings may establish general principles for the design of high-rise buildings, including the design of the base and guidance for tower separation distances. Mr. Black notes that the guidelines state that they are not intended to be used as a checklist for evaluating a proposal, and not all the guidelines are applicable to every site.

34Mr. Black informed the Tribunal that, in his expert opinion, the proposed development meets the spirit of the City’s above noted guidelines. Mr. Black stated that the proposed development of a high-rise building has been designed to adhere to guidelines regarding transition in scale, base building height and typology, angular planes for transition, lot shape and abutment, pedestrian experience, building edges, maximum and minimum base height, animation and transparency of the ground floor, tower floor plates, and separation between towers. The design aims to provide a smooth transition from high-rise to lower-scale areas, enhance the pedestrian experience, and minimize shadow and wind impacts.

35Policy 4.11.19 calls for any new development to minimize any undesirable impacts of adjacent residential units amenity areas. Mr. Black stated that there were no immediate outdoor spaces adjacent to the proposed development. He also mentioned that the Shadow Study and Wind Study did not identify any significant undesirable impacts.

36In contrast, Mr. Ramsay informed the Tribunal that the proposed development does not fit the existing character of the area. The neighbourhood currently consists of a mix of low-rise and mid-rise buildings, including one- and two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings along the local streets, as well as one- and two-storey retail, commercial, and mixed-use buildings primarily along Wellington Street West. There are also occasional one- to three-storey, multi-unit residential buildings such as the Salvation Army’s Grace Manor. The mid-rise buildings typically reach up to nine storeys, including the Wellington West Retirement Community building (1166 Wellington Street) and the nine-storey mixed-use building at the northeast corner of Wellington Street and Parkdale Avenue. In addition, there are 12- and 14-storey residential and mixed-use buildings in the area.

37Mr. Ramsay stated that all public projects, private developments, and community partnerships within and near public spaces will be assessed to see if they improve the pedestrian environment and align with the specific character and opportunities of the area. Additionally, Section 2.5.1 states that new developments must enhance the existing character of Design Priority Areas.

38Mr. Ramsay opined that the proposed development is not in line with the low-rise and mid-rise buildings in the surrounding area. The planned 16-storey building will not blend in with the streetscape and will not contribute to the sense of community. For these reasons, it was his expert opinion that the proposed development is not consistent with the policies found in s. 2.5.1 of the City OP.

39With regard to s. 4.1.1 of the City OP, Mr. Ramsay agreed that the proposed development conforms with this policy as the principal facades and building entrances are oriented to the street. However, for the bulk of s. 4.1.1 it was his expert opinion that the proposed development does not conform with the OP.

40It was Mr. Ramsay's expert opinion that the proposed development does not comply with the policies. The development does not align with the existing character and planned function of the surrounding area. It would be the tallest building in the Traditional Mainstreet area and lacks sufficient setbacks to transition appropriately to neighbouring uses and streetscape.

41The Subject Lands are located in a gateway area, but the proposed development exceeds the expected height and density for a mid-rise gateway location, in Mr. Ramsay's opinion.

42The Wellington West Secondary Plan does not establish specific compatibility criteria. Therefore, the appropriateness of the proposed development should be assessed using the criteria of Section 4.11 a), b), and c) of the Urban Design Guidelines for Development along Traditional Mainstreets and the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings.

43Mr. Ramsay opines that the proposed development does not adequately address the Traditional Mainstreets guidelines, particularly, in relation to wider sidewalks for high pedestrian volumes and the built form guidelines for height, building placement, and angular planes.

44Regarding the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings, Mr. Ramsay believes that the proposed development does not sufficiently adhere to the guidelines concerning transition, height, stepbacks, angular plane, and pedestrian and public spaces.

45Mr. Ramsay concluded that the proposed building height, massing, and scale do not respect the existing and planned character of the surrounding area.

Respect of the Medium-Density Vision of Areas designated Traditional Mainstreet

46Mr. Black told the Tribunal that the OP generally favours increasing development across the urban area, especially in areas where there are opportunities to add more jobs, housing, and improve transit use. He also emphasized the need to focus on specific areas for development that have the potential to achieve moderate to high population densities in a compact form.

47Mr. Black took the Tribunal through various Traditional Mainstreet specific policy context, focusing on the intensification of a property within the City’s urban area. He highlighted to the Tribunal that areas, such as Traditional Mainstreets, are designated as target areas for intensification and specifies minimum density targets. The policies also emphasizes that intensification may occur in various built forms while it provides guidelines for building heights and densities based on location and surrounding context. Additionally, it addresses the need for adequate separation distance between high-rise buildings.

48Mr. Black informed the Tribunal that the proposed development is included as part of a target area of intensification. Its location is along the Transit Priority Corridor of the City and within 750 metres of a City rapid transit station. It was the opinion of the witness that this satisfies the compatibility criteria.

WELLINGTON SECONDARY PLAN

49The Tribunal was directed by Mr. Black that Wellington Secondary Plan Policy 11.3.1.3 states that new buildings over four (4) storeys within Traditional Mainstreet areas should incorporate architectural articulation and details to create a two (2) to three (3) storey base. This is to ensure compatibility with existing low-rise, human-scale buildings and to be consistent with the built form vision for these areas.

50The proposed development includes a six (6) storey podium with a stepback at the second floor to ensure compatibility with other low-rise uses. The ground floor of the building has a height of 6 metres and features a continuous canopy from the theatre, creating a strong pedestrian scale on the street. The upper floors are set back and use different materials to enhance the scale along the street.

51According to Mr. Black, Policy 11.3.1.4 states that new or renovated buildings should integrate into the existing building fabric of the street to maintain an urban village character. The proposed development incorporates elements of scale and detail from the traditional one to three-storey buildings and the narrow lot sizes of the Wellington West corridor.

52Mr. Black described that the building design includes a rhythm of glazing and masonry that reflects the existing building fabric and creates the appearance of several small retail spaces along the street. The height of the lower floor is based on the height of the theatre marquee element.

53Mr. Black believes that the proposed development is compatible with the existing low-rise buildings and is in line with the built form vision for this area.

54Mr. Ramsay expressed that, in his view, the proposed 16-storey building does not align with, or fulfill the purpose of the policies mentioned above. The proposed building is considered to be an excessive development for the site and may not blend well with the surrounding streetscape. The area along Wellington Street West, near the Subject Lands, mainly consists of low-rise buildings ranging from one to three storeys, along with some mid-rise buildings of 9 to 12 storeys. Additionally, the proposed four storeys and then one-storey base building (podium) along Hamilton Avenue and Parkdale Avenue exceeds the two- to three-storey limit set by Section 11.3.1 (3). On the Wellington Street West facade, there is a 2.0 metre setback at the second floor level, which distinguishes the base building from the storeys above. Greater setbacks are necessary along Hamilton Avenue, Wellington Avenue, and Parkdale Avenue to create opportunities for improving the public realm, such as incorporating small plazas, wider sidewalks, and/or patios into the site design.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

55Upon reviewing the contested planning evidence, the Tribunal is convinced that the proposal promotes the efficient development of land, accommodates a variety of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to a range of housing options supported by public transit.

56The Tribunal finds that the proposal aligns with the policy direction established by the PPS and conforms to the relevant directives overall, as maintained by both the City OP at the time of the Appeals and the newly Minister-approved OP. The Tribunal appreciates the work of Mr. Ramsay in providing evidence to compare the two versions of the OP to the Tribunal.

57Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal takes into account matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning, and is in the greater public interest. Importantly, the proposal also advances the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.

INTERIM ORDER

58THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and Orders on an interim basis that the Amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Ottawa is modified as set out in Attachment “1” to this Order.

59THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and orders on an interim basis that the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, is hereby amended substantially in accordance with the details of the Attachment “2”. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Ottawa to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

60THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and Orders on an interim basis that the Site Plan Control application is approved, in principle, substantially in accordance with the applicable architectural drawings prepared by DIALOG dated April 19, 2023 and the landscape drawings prepared by DIALOG dated April 6, 2023 set out in Attachment “3”.

61That the Tribunal approval of the site plan drawings be conditional upon the conditions presented in Attachment “4”, and subject to any minor revisions that may be agreed to by Minto Communities Inc. and the City of Ottawa.

62The Tribunal withholds its Final Order pending receipt of final versions of the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan drawings and conditions of approval and the Tribunal’s approval of same, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor. The Tribunal directs that the final documents be provided to the Tribunal within 30 days of issuance of the Decision and Interim Order or, alternatively, a written status update be provided by the Parties within 30 days if additional time is required to request the Final Order.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

VICE-CHAIR

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

ATTACHMENT 4