Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 11, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000646
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Visture Property Group
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit three 2-storey stacked townhouses, each containing a primary and an additional residential unit, for a total of six dwelling units.
Reference Number:
D06-2022-021
Property Address:
158 Colborne Street West
Municipality:
Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000646
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000646
OLT Case Name:
Visture Property Group v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
Heard:
October 28, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Visture Property Group
J. Savini
City of Kawartha Lakes
R. Carlson
MEMORANDUM OF oral decision DELIVERED BY MEMBER S. GOPIKRISHNA AND S. DEBOER ON OCTOBER 28, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was the appeal by Visture Property Group (“Appellant”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City of Kawartha Lakes’ (“City”) failure to make a decision on the Zoning By-law Application (“ZBA”) within the statutory timelines for the property municipally known as 158 Colborne Street West (“Site”) in the City.
2The background of how the proposed ZBA respecting the Site was refused by the City and its subsequent appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) is described in an earlier decision dated October 3, 2024.
3The Parties notified the Tribunal at the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on September 10, 2024, that a settlement had been reached between the Parties concerning the ZBA and requested that a settlement hearing take place as soon as possible in the Tribunal’s calendar. The hearing now before the Tribunal is the review and approval of the settlement if the Tribunal deems the settlement as satisfactory to meet the tests of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
4As a result of a settlement with the City, the Appellant proposes to rezone a portion of the lands at the Site from the Residential Two (R2) Zone to the Residential Multiple One Special Twenty (RM1-S20) Zone and the other portion of the lands from the Residential Two (R2) Zone to the Residential Two Special Forty-Three (R2-S43) Zone with site-specific development standards. On the portion to be rezoned RM1-S20, the Applicant intends to construct three stacked townhouses with two storeys each, providing six dwelling units cumulatively, such that each townhouse includes a primary and a secondary residence. The lands are presently governed by the City of Kawartha Lakes Zoning By-law No. 2000-75 and will require a future severance to sever the existing lot into the lots to be zoned RM1-S20 and R2-S43, should the ZBA be approved.
EVIDENCE
5In support of the settlement, the Appellant presented Kent Randall, a professional land use planner, who was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the settlement. Mr. Randall’s Affidavit was entered as Exhibit 1 to the hearing event.
6Mr. Randall described the Site as being located at the northwest corner of Colborne Street West and Walker Street, in the northwest portion of the former Town of Lindsay and added that the Site is a part of Lot 22, Concession 4, geographic Township of Ops, in the former Town of Lindsay. The Site is approximately 0.13 hectares such that there is a frontage of 24.4 metres (“m”) on Colborne Street West and 54.86 m on Walker Street and is currently occupied by a one-storey single-detached dwelling accessible from Colborne Street West. The Site is immediately adjacent to residential properties along Walker Street to the north and is in a community that is home to various land uses, including a private school, multi-unit condominium offices, and a commercial plaza.
7It was Mr. Randall’s opinion that the proposal allows for the development of three two-storey townhouse units, each with an additional dwelling unit (for a total of six units) within the northern portion (rear yard) of the portion of the Site that is to be rezoned RM1-S20. Each townhouse unit has a total gross floor area of 132 square metres (“sq. m"), such that both the primary unit, occupying the first floor of the townhouse, as well as the additional unit located in the basement, have an area of 66 sq. m each. Each townhouse unit will be served by two parking spaces that can be accessed through a separate driveway off Walker Street.
8Mr. Randall continued to opine that the proposed ZBA is necessitated by the inability of the existing R2 Zone to allow for the townhouses to be built as proposed because the existing zoning only permits a single detached dwelling type. In order to construct the townhouses as proposed, it would be necessary to rezone the northern portion of the property from the R2 Zone to the RM1-20 Zone, as well as permit the following site-specific regulations:
Minimum rear yard setback – 5.8 m (where 7.5 m is required)
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit – 146 sq. m (where 185 sq. m is required)*
Maximum lot coverage – 46% (where 35% is required) *
Maximum gross floor area as a % of lot area – 74% (where 55% is required)*
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”)
9Mr. Randall prefaced his planning opinion regarding the proposed ZBA by pointing out that as of October 20, 2024, the new PPS 2024 had come into effect, replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as well as the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe, 2019, Mr. Randall stated that the proposed ZBA conformed to ss. 2.1 (Planning for People and Homes), 2.2 (Housing), 2.3 ( Settlement Areas) and 3.6 ( Sewage, Water and Storm water) of PPS 2024 because it represented and implemented the concept of residential intensification in a settlement area. He added that the proposed ZBA satisfied ss. 2.1 and 2.2 of PPS 2024 by encouraging a mix of housing options through redevelopment and intensification. Mr. Randall also provided evidence about how the ZBA satisfied Policy 2.3 of PPS 2024 because the proposed development is within walking distance of public transportation, with specific reference to the City of Kawartha Lakes’ “Blue” and “Green” lines. After explaining how the proposed development’s reliance on the existing sewage and water system makes it consistent with Policy 3.6 of the PPS 2024 and the on-site management of storm water makes it consistent with Policy 3.6.8, Mr. Randall concluded that the ZBA is consistent with the new PPS 2024.
Town of Lindsay Official Plan (“TLOP”)
10It was Mr. Randall’s opinion that while the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (“CKLOP”) ostensibly governs the proposed ZBA, it is the TLOP that is the operative Official Plan (“OP”) because s. 31.1 of the CKLOP states that the TLOP will be in effect until a Secondary Plan is developed for the urban center encompassing the Site.
11Mr. Randall opined that the Site is designated “Residential”, as per Schedule ‘A’ to the TLOP and that according to s. 4.1.1 of the TLOP, the predominant use of land in the Residential designation is eclectic and includes a variety of dwelling types. He discussed how the ZBA conformed to s. 4.1.2.1 of the TLOP because it represents “low-density development” by virtue of being less than 25 units per gross hectare. He noted that the proposed development can be serviced with existing municipal sanitary and water infrastructure and will not result in negative traffic impacts. He asserted that the proposed development also conformed to s. 4.1.1 of the TLOP because it is compatible with the surrounding uses, including commercial and institutional uses, and is well served by public transit.
12Mr. Randall continued with his opinion that the requested ZBA conformed to ss. 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 of the TLOP because they satisfy the conditions stated in these sections for appropriate development of the land, including secondary units. He referenced the Storm Water Report commissioned by the Appellant and discussed how the ZBA conformed with s. 5.2.4 (Storm Water) of the TLOP because the storm water could be controlled on-site without negative impacts on adjacent lands.
13On the basis of the above evidence, it was Mr. Randall’s overall opinion that the proposed ZBA conformed to the TLOP and should be approved as presented to the Tribunal.
Participant Statement
14The Tribunal asked Mr. Randall to address the objections raised by Mr. Michael Puffer, a Participant residing in the neighbourhood resident, who was opposed to the ZBA on the basis of issues of concerns centred on increased traffic and pedestrian safety. Before responding to specific issues raised by the latter, Mr. Randall opined that the same objections had been articulated at the PAC meeting completed in April 2024 and had been satisfactorily addressed by the Appellant.
15Mr. Randall summarized Mr. Puffer’s objections by stating that the latter was concerned that the approval of the ZBA would substantially increase traffic in the neighbourhood. He noted that the concern was not supported by any documentation or detail. It was Mr. Randall’s opinion that his client had commissioned a study on Traffic Brief and Entrance Design, which had concluded that the additional dwellings and driveways created as a result of the ZBA would not pose any safety issues from a line-of-sight perspective on Walker Street Mr. Randall continued to opine that the entrances have also been designed in compliance with the City’s Entrance By-law No. 2017-151, and his conclusion about the lack of new, hitherto unexperienced traffic related issues was buttressed by the City’s Engineering division. Mr. Randall opined that the Appellant had reduced the number of units to be developed in response to feedback from the community and how the City’s planning reports had noted the existence of four new driveways as a result of the ZBA but concluded that they would not result in any new concerns or impacts hitherto unexperienced.
16Based on the above evidence, it was Mr. Randall’s opinion that Mr. Puffer’s objections had been addressed by the design of the proposed buildings and that ZBA conforms to the PPS 2024 and conforms with the TLOP and represents good land use planning.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17The Tribunal notes that Mr. Randall was the only planning witness qualified to provide an expert opinion and that his evidence is uncontroverted.
18Under existing legislation, the ZBA has to conform to the higher-level Provincial Policies, with specific reference to the PPS 2024 and all applicable OPs. The Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s unquestioned evidence that the TLOP, as opposed to the CKLOP, is the applicable OP because the latter states that the former is the applicable OP till a Secondary Plan is developed for the surrounding community.
19The Tribunal accepts Mr. Randall’s uncontroverted evidence that the proposed ZBA conforms to Policies 2.2 (Housing), 2.3 (Settlement Areas) and 3.6 (Sewage, Water and Storm Water) and Policy 3.6 of the PPS 2024 by virtue of bringing about residential intensification in a Settlement area and utilizing both the existing sewage system. The Tribunal also accepts the evidence about the proposal being public transportation friendly and finds that the ZBA conforms to the PPS 2024.
20The Tribunal accepts that the evidence tendered by the Witness that the ZBA is consistent with Policies 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.1 of the TLOP because the proposed development can be serviced with existing municipal sanitary and water infrastructure and will not create any negative traffic impacts. It also accepts the Appellant’s evidence about the proposal’s compatibility with Policies 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 of the TLOP by meeting the conditions listed in these sections for appropriate development of the land, as well as the inclusion of secondary units. The Tribunal agrees with the Appellants that the proposal has the ability of using existing storm water management, as stated in Policy 5.3.4 of the OP. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA conforms to both the PPS 2024 and the TLOP.
21The Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s evidence that the approval of the ZBA will not result in any negative impacts with regard to traffic and pedestrian issues. The Tribunal finds that the settlement will provide for a form of housing that represents an appropriate level of intensification in the area. The Tribunal finds that the settlement represents good land use planning and should be approved.
ORDER
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed and the City of Kawartha Lakes Zoning By-law No. 2000-75 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Kawartha Lakes to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes.
“S. Gopikrishna”
S. GOPIKRISHNA
member
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
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
SCHEDULE "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES
PIN: 63204-0552 (LT)
PT El/2 LT 22 CON 4 OPS AS IN RI 14888; KAWARTHA LAKES
SCHEDULE "B" ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
By-Law Number 2024-XX
A BY-LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF LINDSAY ZONING BY-LAW 2000-75 TO REZONE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF KAWARTHA
LAKES
ORDERED BY THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL:
Section 1.00 Zoninq Details
1.01. Property Affected: The Property affected by this by-law is described as Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, in the Geographic Township of Ops being 158 Colborne Street West.
1.02. Textual Amendment: By-law No. 2000-75 of the Town of Lindsay is further amended by adding Section 9.3.21 Residential Multiple Special (RMI-S**) Zone:
9.3.21 Residential Multiple Special (RM1-S20) Zone
Notwithstanding the permitted uses and zone requirements of the RMI zone, on land zoned RM1-S20 a maximum of 3 townhouses are permitted, subject to the following provisions:
For all townhouse lots:
a. Minimum rear yard setback
For the inner (middle) townhouse lot:
5.8 m
a. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
146 m2
b. Maximum lot coverage
46%
c. Maximum gross floor area as a % of lot area
74%
All other provisions of this By-law shall continue to apply.
1.03 Textual Amendment: By-law No. 2000-75 of the Town of Lindsay is further amended by adding Section 7.3.48 as follows:
"R2-S43 Zone
Notwithstanding the definition of "Lot Line, Front" in Section 4, Colborne Street West shall be considered the front lot line. Notwithstanding the permitted uses and zone requirements of the R2 zone, on lands zoned R2-S43, the following requirements shall also apply:
a. Minimum rear yard setback 5.56 m
All other provisions of this By-law shall continue to apply."
1.04 Schedule Amendment: Schedule "A" to By-law No. 2000-75 of the Town of Lindsay is further amended to change the zone category from the Residential Two (R2) Zone to the Residential Multiple One Special Twenty (RM1-S20) Zone and from the Residential Two (R2) Zone to the Residential Two Special Forty-Three (R2-S43) Zone as shown on Schedule "A" attached to this By-law.
Section 2:00 Effective Date
2.01. Effective Date: This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is
Ordered.
ORDERED by the Ontario Land Tribunal dated 2024 for Case
Number OLT-24-000646