Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 19, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000648
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: 1520866 Ontario Limited (Losani Homes)
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To facilitate the development of a medium-density mixed use development.
Reference Number: DA-23-043
Property Address: 157 Upper Centennial Parkway (Part of Lot 25, Concession 7. Part 1 of 62R-15922)
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000648
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000648
OLT Case Name: 1520866 Ontario Limited v Hamilton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Reference Number: 25T-202304
Property Address: 157 Upper Centennial Parkway (Part of Lot 25, Concession 7. Part 1 of 62R-15922)
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000649
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000648
Heard: October 17, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
1520866 Ontario Limited
D. Baker
City of Hamilton
P. Krysiak P. MacDonald (in absentia)
Alinea Land Corporation (formerly Penta Properties and Upper Centennial Developments Ltd.)
S. Snider A. Toumanians (in absentia)
660439 Ontario Inc.
J. Petropoulos*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON OCTOBER 17, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
PRELIMINARY MATTER
1The oral decision for this Hearing was rendered on October 17, 2024, and by Order of the Tribunal is in force and effect on that same date.
2At that time the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”) was in force. Thus, the written decision will follow those guidelines.
INTRODUCTION
3The matters before the Tribunal are the Appeals by 1520866 Ontario Limited (Losani Homes) (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) arising from the failure of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), the Subdivision Application and the Site Plan Application, (“Applications”), pursuant to ss. 17(40), 34(11), 41(12) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 157 Upper Centennial Parkway (“site”).
4The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate a medium-density mixed-use development consisting of 82 townhouses and a mixed-use building with nine (9) residential units and five (5) commercial units fronting onto Upper Centennial Parkway.
5At the onset of the Hearing and with the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal combined OLT Case Nos. OLT-22-003572 with OLT-24-000648.
6Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved their issues.
7David Aston, a Registered Professional Planner, and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, provided a Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 2), and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matters under appeal. Mr. Aston delivered a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale in support of the settlement proposal.
SITE CONTEXT
8The site is located on the west side of Upper Centennial Parkway, north of Highland Road West, in the Felker neighbourhood and forms part of a larger development area in Stoney Creek, in the City.
9The site is approximately 1.87 hectares (“ha”) in size, irregular shaped with 73 metres (“m”) of frontage on Upper Centennial Parkway, classified as a Major Arterial Road, and approximately 110 m of frontage onto Taverny Road and is currently vacant.
10Three (3) vehicular access points are proposed, including two from Taverny Road and one from Upper Centennial Parkway. The proposed development includes surface parking and amenity space.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
11The OPA for the site is required to redesignate a portion of the site to the “Neighbourhoods” designation in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”) and to amend the West Mountain Area (Heritage Green) Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) to redesignate certain areas of the site to “Low Density Residential 3c” and “Local Commercial” and to remove Site-Specific Policy - Area C, to facilitate the development of residential uses and a mixed-use building.
12The ZBA for the site is required to implement new site-specific policies to permit the proposed development. Two site-specific zoning By-laws are proposed. The first By-law amends Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 to rezone a portion of the site from Neighbourhood Development “ND” Zone and Open Space “OS” Zone and General Commercial Special Exception “GC-49” Zone to Multiple Residential Modified “RM3-XX-H” Zone, to permit residential uses. The second By-law, adds a portion of the site to City Zoning By-law No. 05-200 and zones the lands Community Commercial (C3, XXX) Zone, Modified to permit a mixed-use building.
13The Draft Plan of Subdivision creates two (2) blocks. Block 1 is proposed as a multiple residential block (1.605 ha); Block 2 is proposed as a mixed-use block (0.266 ha).
14The Site Plan Application includes the Site Plan to establish the development proposal, including buildings, access, parking, landscaping and associated details to address the City’s site plan requirements.
PLANNING RATIONALE
15The planning policy documents related to the proposed development are s. 2 of the Act, the PPS, GP, UHOP, and Secondary Plan.
16In Mr. Aston’s opinion, the development proposal has regard for the matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act.
17Mr. Aston submitted that the proposed Development represents the efficient use of land and will result in the development of land along an arterial road, in an area planned for low-density and commercial development and will contribute to the provision of housing options in the community.
18Further, the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports were prepared in support of the development and concluded that the development proposal can be adequately serviced through connections to existing and planned municipal infrastructure.
19In Mr. Aston’s professional opinion, the Applications are consistent with the policies of the PPS and conform to the GP. The Draft Plan of Subdivision addresses the requirements of ss. 51(24) and 51(25) of the Act, has regard to matters of Provincial interest, conforms to the UHOP and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20Having reviewed the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Aston, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the GP and the designated policies, has regard to the other policies of the UHOP and Secondary Plan, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
21All orders are in force and effect as of October 17, 2024.
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals are allowed in part, and Orders that the Official Plan for the City of Hamilton is modified as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal Orders that the Official Plan is approved as modified.
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals are allowed, in part, and City of Hamilton By-law No. 3692-92 and Stoney Creek By-law No. 05-200 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 and 3 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Hamilton to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals are allowed in part, the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Robert McLaren dated 2022/12/22 comprising Pt Lt 25 Con 7 Saltfleet, Being Part 1 On 62R15922; Stoney Creek, City Of Hamilton is approved as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 5 to this Order;
25AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Hamilton 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 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.
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals are allowed in part, the site plan prepared by MHBC dated 2024/08/13 is approved as set out in Attachment 6 to this Order, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 7 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.