Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 21, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000761

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: B-26/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: A-39/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000767

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: A-38/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000766

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: A-37/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000765

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: A-36/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000764

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: B-28/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000763

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: To sever a property in a total of four lots to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Reference Number: B-27/24

Property Address: 34 Ridgeway Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Guelph

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000762

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000761

OLT Case Name: 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. v. Guelph (City)

Heard: October 10 - 11, 2024, by Video Hearing, October 17, 2024, by written submissions

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. K. Thompson C. Manning

Ridgeway-Malvern Neighbourhood Association B. Duxbury

DECISION DELIVERED BY P. Tomilin AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter before the Tribunal are the Appeals filed by 34 Ridgeway Avenue Inc. (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Guelph (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny Consent and Minor Variance (“MV”) Applications, pursuant to ss. 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the property located at 34 Ridgeway Avenue (“subject property” / “site”).

2The Planning staff recommended the approval of the Applications, with conditions attached.

3The Appellant is seeking to sever the site to create a total of four (4) lots to facilitate the development of semi-detached dwellings.

4The subject property is located on Ridgeway Avenue, south of Arkell Road. Ridgeway Avenue connects with Malvern Crescent and is located east of Gordon Street in the Clairfield area. The site has a frontage of 36.4 metres (“m”), a lot depth of approximately 56.3 m and a lot area of 2,051 square metres (“m²”).

PRELIMINARY MATTER

5Prior to the Hearing, the City advised the Tribunal that it will not be taking a position on the Appeals. The City’s Planning Report was in support of the proposed development.

6At the time of the Hearing, the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) (2020) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”) (2020) were in effect. On October 20, 2024, the PPS (2024) came into effect and the GP (2020) is no longer applicable. In its Decision, the Tribunal will rely on Planning instruments that are currently in force.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

7The Tribunal received one Party Status request from Ridgeway-Malvern Neighbourhood Association (“RMNA”). Given that RMNA is incorporated and has retained expert witnesses for the Hearing, the Tribunal granted the request. RMNA is a Party to the proceedings.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST

8Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received four Participant Status requests. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to the following individuals:

• Christa Purchase

• Rani Varkey

• Shelley Jacobson represented by Nicole Pauli

• Christopher Hohenadel

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

9The Appellant is seeking to demolish the existing single detached dwelling, and to sever the subject property into four lots in order to construct two semi-detached dwellings, with each lot containing one semi-detached unit, to include one internal (in the basement) and one external Additional Dwelling Unit (“ADU”).

10The consent Applications are for four lots:

1. Lot 1: frontage of approximately 9.1 m and a lot area 514 m²;

2. Lot 2: frontage of approximately 9.1 m and a lot area 513 m²;

3. Lot 3: frontage of approximately 9.1 m and a lot area 512 m²; and

4. Lot 4 (retained lot): frontage of approximately 9.1 m and a lot area 512 m².

11The MV Applications are identical for all four lots, and consist of the following:

1. A maximum garage width of 4.5 m for the proposed semi-detached dwelling, whereas the regulation under appeal requires a maximum garage width of 5 m or 50% of the lot frontage (4.55 m), whichever is less;

2. A maximum driveway width of 5 m for the proposed semi-detached dwelling, whereas the regulation under appeal requires a maximum driveway width of 5 m or 60% of the lot frontage (5.46 m), whichever is less;

3. A maximum attached garage projection of 2 m beyond the main front wall, where a roofed porch is proposed, whereas the regulation under appeal permits a maximum attached garage projection of 2 m only if a roofed porch is provided;

4. A minimum floor area of 20 m² for the proposed attached garage, whereas the regulation under appeal requires a minimum floor area of 20 m² for attached garages; and

5. A minimum of one parking space per semi-detached dwelling unit, whereas the regulation under appeal requires a minimum of one parking space per semi-detached dwelling unit.

12Notably, the requested MVs are not required by the current Zoning By-law No. 23-20790 (“ZBL 23-20790”) or a former Zoning By-law No. 95-14864 (“ZBL 95-14864”). Rather, the requested MVs replace certain sections of ZBL No. 23-20790 that are under appeal with regulations that mirror the regulations under appeal.

HEARING

13The following expert witnesses appeared on behalf of the Appellant:

1. Chris Corosky – Land Use Planner;

2. William Maria – Transportation Engineer;

3. Angela Kroetsch – Engineer in Stormwater Management; and

4. Eric Rempel (by summons) – City’s Land Use Planner.

14The RMNA relied on the evidence of two expert witnesses:

1. Allan Ramsay – Land Use Planner; and

2. Stephen Brook – Transportation Engineer.

15Three lay witnesses appeared on behalf of the RMNA:

1. Annia Kycia

2. Mary Rife

3. Philip Maher

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

16The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Consent Applications meet the general requirements set out in the applicable Provincial Planning Legislation and municipal planning policies, the specific criteria of the Act and represent good planning. The proposed severances must also meet the applicable policies of the Official Plan (“OP”), ZBL, and satisfy the relevant criteria set out in ss. 51(24) of the Act.

17The Tribunal shall also have regard to matters of Provincial interest.

18An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a Hearing de novo, and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in ss. 45(1) of the Act has been satisfied:

1. The intent and purpose of the OP is being maintained;

2. The intent and purpose of the ZBL is being maintained;

3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and

4. Is minor in nature.

ISSUES

19The RMNA did not contest whether the Applications have regard to matters of Provincial interest or are consistent with higher order policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2024).

20The RMNA has a number of issues with the proposed development:

1. Intensification;

2. Traffic and pedestrian safety; and

3. Stormwater management, grading and drainage.

Intensification and compatibility

21Mr. Ramsay proffered that the Ridgeway-Malvern neighbourhood is a unique subdivision dominated by large lots with generous frontages and setbacks, containing single detached dwellings. It is not connected to other communities by a through road.

22Mr. Ramsay’s neighbourhood assessment included lands within a five-minute walk from the subject property. It includes commonality in built form and lot pattern, local road network integral to the neighbourhood, natural features and applicable zoning and planning regulations.

23Mr. Ramsay provided that the neighbourhood comprised of the original dwellings built in the 60’s that are generally smaller in size, usually one-storey in height and have generous setbacks; and newly renovated single detached homes that are larger in size, mostly two-storeys in height with two-car garages. In his view, the newly renovated homes are well integrated with older dwellings.

24Ms. Ramsay explained that lot severances have occurred on a very limited basis and resulted in construction of single detached dwellings.

25In Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, the proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding built form, as there are no other semi-detached dwellings within this neighbourhood. He stated that, as a result of the severance, the lots will be irregular in shape with narrow frontages and are very deep in length. Further, he said that the severed lots are not in the public interest, do not conform to the OP policies due to the incompatibility with surroundings, and the severed lots will be undersized.

26Mr. Corosky testified that the subject property forms a part of subdivision that was developed in the early 60’s and contained large lots. The site has an extra-large frontage, comprised of approximately one- and one-half lots. In comparison, in modern subdivisions lots with a 15 m wide frontage are considered large. In terms of lot area, the site is more that four times greater (2052 m²) than required (460 m²).

27Mr. Corosky explained that the site is zoned RL.1. Based on a partial approval order issued by the Tribunal on March 28, 2024, the majority of ZBL 2023-20790 is now in effect, including sections permitting semi-detached dwellings and ADUs on the subject property as of right. The requested MV pertain to some of the regulations of ZBL 2023-20790 that continue to be under appeal. He pointed out that if the entire ZBL 2023-20790 was in effect, none of the requested MV would be necessary. The purpose of the requested MV is to implement the regulations that continue to be under appeal by having them apply on a site-specific basis.

28Both, Mr. Corosky and Mr. Rempel, are of the opinion that given the size of the lot and the significant changes to the planning regime in the Province that are calling for a more compact built form, the subject property is the prime location for intensification.

29Mr. Corosky provided that compatibility criteria does not mean the same as others, but rather that it will not cause adverse effects on the surroundings. Mr. Corosky brought to the Tribunal’s attention that the proposed development exceeds required side and backyard setbacks as well as the lot area requirement. The proposed semi-detached dwellings on four lots will look similar to a dwelling in the middle of two lots, thus the frontage will have a combined width of 18.2 m for each of the buildings and will look comparable to other houses in the area. Further, the lots that are abutting the subject property and fronting onto Oakridge Crescent, which are also zoned RL.1, have smaller lot sizes and are within a five-minute walk from the site.

30In his viva voce and written evidence, Mr. Corosky reviewed ss. 51(24) of the Act and stated that the development proposal will provide additional housing through infill/intensification of underutilized lands, would take advantage of existing municipal servicing and infrastructure and by the inclusion of ADUs, would provide a range of affordable housing options.

31It is Mr. Corosky’s professional planning opinion that the proposed development satisfies the criteria of all of the applicable planning instruments, including, but not limited to s. 2, ss. 51(24) and 45(1) of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024.

32The subject property is designated as a Low Density Residential in the City’s OP. Under ss. 9.2.1 ADUs are a permitted use and ss. 9.2.4 allows for ADUs as a separate building on the same lot.

33Mr. Corosky proffered that semi-detached dwellings are permitted under ss. 9.3.2. Maximum permitted net density is 35 units per hectare (“ha”) for the delineated built-up areas. The proposed development has a combined area of 2,052 m² (or 0.2052 ha) and will consist of four (4) units, thus the net density is calculated as follows: 4 (units) / 0.2052 (ha) = 19.49 units per ha. Mr. Corosky explained that pursuant to the Act, ADUs are permitted on any residential lot containing semi-detached dwellings and are not calculated toward net density by the City.

34In the opinion of Messrs. Corosky and Rempel, the proposed development represents good planning, will not cause undue adverse effects on the surrounding area and is in public interest.

Traffic, parking and pedestrian safety

35Members of the RMNA and Participants raised concerns related to the absence of sidewalks, the narrow width of Ridgeway Avenue, inadequate street lighting, and pedestrian and child safety.

36Mr. Brook testified that the area surrounding the subject property does not have any sidewalks, on street parking is prohibited, the width of Ridgway Avenue is below the current minimum standard and is further reduced by residents placing garbage receptacles on the road on the collection day. On the day of the site visit, Mr. Brook observed that some people park on the street despite the prohibition.

37Mr. Brook explained that during winter months the width of the road could be further reduced due to snowbanks. The risk to pedestrians, including children, is greater in the dark, especially if the vehicles are parked on both sides of the road. Pedestrians are forced to walk around parked vehicles on the street due to the road having no shoulder, and to avoid the slope leading to the ditch. Further, Mr. Brook stated that in his view, the proposed development should be considered Low-Rise Multifamily Housing and according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) the proposed development should require a total of 26 parking spaces.

38In conclusion, it is Mr. Brook’s opinion that due to the less than required road width, lack of sidewalks, prohibited street parking and inadequate parking on site, the proposed development will lead to increased traffic and an additional exposure of pedestrians to potential traffic hazards.

39Unlike Mr. Brook, Mr. Maria undertook a traffic study of the neighbourhood adjacent to the subject property. His findings were that there are currently very low volumes of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and that the development proposal would cause a negligible increase to both and is well below the maximum capacity of the road.

40Mr. Maria reviewed parking requirements of both ZBL 23-20790 that is currently partially under appeal and ZBL 95-14864 and concluded that the development proposal will satisfy the required off street parking by providing a minimum of three (3) parking spaces per semi-detached dwelling and an ADU. Additional visitor on-street parking of approximately 85 spaces is located within 500 m radius or a five–seven-minute walk from the site.

41During cross-examination, Mr. Brook admitted that he had no concerns with the methodology used by Mr. Maria for traffic study.

42City’s staff did not raise any issues related to traffic or pedestrian safety resulting from redevelopment of subject property.

Stormwater management, grading and drainage

43The evidence provided by Ms. Kroetsch related to grading, drainage, stormwater management, silt and erosion control was not challenged by the RMNA. Ms. Kroetsch testified that as a result of the proposed development there will be a decrease in off site water runoff, including in the event of a 100-year storm event. Instead, all storm water will be infiltrated on site. In addition, because the development proposal will be connected to the municipal services, there will be no need for a septic system and there will not be any adverse impacts on well water that some of the residents of surrounding properties use.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

44Every year more and more newcomers are calling Canada home and all of them have to live somewhere. Our municipalities have limited boundaries. In order to accommodate everyone, we can not always expand outward, we have to consider more compact built form.

45The Tribunal disagrees with Mr. Ramsay’s narrow focus in his analysis of the neighbourhood. His analysis was limited to Ridgeway Avenue and Malvern Crescent. It excluded the area abutting the subject property to the south, also zoned RL.1 and located within a five-minute walk that was part of his assessment.

46Overall, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Messrs. Corosky and Rempel. The Tribunal agrees that the subject property is the appropriate location for infill/intensification, - the size of the proposed lots as a result of the severance, the side yard and backyard setbacks are well above the required. The proposed development consisting of two semi-detached dwellings will have an appearance similar to two detached dwellings sitting on two lots with frontage of 18.2 m.

47While the Tribunal sympathizes with concerns raised by the residents in regard to narrowness of the road, the absence of sidewalks and inadequate street lighting, those are pre-existing conditions and will remain unchanged. The Tribunal finds that traffic analysis performed by Mr. Maria is more comprehensive than the observations of Mr. Brook. Given that Mr. Brook did not have any concerns with the methodology used by Mr. Maria, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Maria.

48The only evidence before the Tribunal related to grading, drainage and stormwater management is the evidence proffered by Ms. Kroetsch. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Instead, the development proposal will have positive impact on stormwater drainage, due to infiltration on site.

CONCLUSION

49This Hearing was a Hearing de novo of the Consent and MV Applications. In making its Decision, the Tribunal relied on the City Planning Report, considered the professional expert evidence of Messrs. Corosky, Rempel, Ramsay, Brook, Maria and Ms. Kroetsch; the lay evidence of Mss. Kycia and Rife and Mr. Maher, as well as the written submissions of Christa Purchase, Rani Varkey, Shelley Jacobson and Christopher Hohenadel.

50The Tribunal finds that the variances satisfy the four tests of s. 45(12) of the Act and have regard to the matters of the provincial interests set out in s. 2, is consistent with the City OP, ZBL 23-20790 and ZBL 23-20790, and is representative of good planning. The Consent to sever Applications are consistent with the policies of the PPS 2024, conforms to the OP, meet the requirements of the ZBL 23-20790 and ZBL 23-20790, and represent good planning and are in the public interest.

ORDER

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed, the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2023-20790 and Zoning By-law No. 95-14864 are authorized, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to this Order.

“P. Tomilin”

P. tomilin

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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