Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 4, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000166

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. Subject: Official Plan Amendment Description: To permit 9-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor Property Address: 2163 & 2169 Sixth Line Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton Municipal File No.: OPA1415.14 OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000166 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000166 OLT Case Name: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Description: To permit 9-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor Property Address: 2163 & 2169 Sixth Line Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton Municipal File No.: Z.1415.14 OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000166 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000166

Heard: February 27, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. ("Applicant")	D. Baker C. deSereville
Town of Oakville ("Town")	J. Huctwith
Region of Halton ("Region")	B. Maione

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S.L. DIONNE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is a settlement on appeals filed by Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. in respect of applications, seeking an amendment to the Livable Oakville Official Plan ("OP") and an amendment to Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-014, as amended ("ZBL"), for which the Council of the Town of Oakville ("Council") neglected to make a decision within the prescribed timelines set out in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, ("Act").

2The appeals affect the lands municipally known as 2163 and 2169 Sixth Line in the Town of Oakville located on the north side of Sixth Line, west of River Oaks Boulevard ("Subject Site").

3By way of background, Bara Group submitted applications to the Town of Oakville, on July 15, 2022, to permit the re-development of the Subject Site for a nine- (9) storey mixed-use building ("Original Proposal"). Prior to this submission, two (2) public information meetings were held (on July 11, 2019 and July 5, 2022) to present and obtain feedback on the proposal from the community. A statutory public meeting on the applications was held on February 7, 2023, at which time comments from the public were received and Council directed further analysis on various matters be undertaken. On February 13, 2023, Bara Group appealed the applications to the Tribunal.

4A Case Management Conference ("CMC") was held on June 26, 2023. Requests for Participant status were filed in advance of the CMC by four individuals. Two (2) of those individuals attended the CMC and were granted Participant status by the Tribunal, namely Samy Beshay and Julia Kelly.

5A five- (5) day hearing on the merits of the appeals was scheduled to commence on February 26, 2024. In advance of the hearing, the Parties reached a settlement with respect to the proposed re-development for the Subject Site, and the hearing was converted to a one- (1) day hearing on the proposed settlement.

6Bara Group, the Town and Region appeared before the Tribunal in support of the settlement achieved by the Parties. The Parties filed with the Tribunal an Affidavit of David Charezenko dated February 20, 2024, marked by the Tribunal as Exhibit 1 and the Parties also filed with the Tribunal, a proposed OPA marked as Exhibit 2, and a proposed ZBA marked as Exhibit 3, (collectively the "Settlement Proposal/Plans").

7Based on the evidence on this matter, the Tribunal allows the appeals in part, and approves the OPA and ZBA for the reasons set out below.

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

8When adjudicating official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendments:

a. are consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 ("PPS"));

b. conform, not conflict, with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended ("Growth Plan"));

c. conform with the applicable upper tier official plan (in this case the Region of Halton Official Plan); and,

d. represent good planning.

And, for a zoning by-law amendment appeal, the Tribunal must also determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with the applicable official plans (in this case, both the Region of Halton Official Plan and Town of Oakville Livable Plan). Further, for both appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and have regard to the information and materials that Town Council received in relation to the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Act.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL/PLANS

9David Charezenko, a Registered Professional Planner, was called and qualified on consent to provide expert opinion in land use planning evidence on the matter before the Tribunal. His opinion evidence provided by way of both an Affidavit and oral testimony in support of the Settlement Proposal/Plans, was fulsome and of assistance to the Tribunal in this matter.

10In his evidence to the Tribunal, Mr. Charezenko pointed to the Settlement Proposal/Plans found in his Affidavit at Tab F (Exhibit 1), and provided additional oral evidence to the Tribunal as a detailed overview of the Settlement Proposal/Plans, the surrounding context of the Subject Site, and his planning policy analysis. He advised the Tribunal that the Settlement Proposal is a result of collaborative sessions with Town and Regional Planning Staff, and the comments and input from various community members.

11The Subject Site is located within an established residential neighbourhood, comprised of low density housing forms, medium/high density residential development (referred to as the Oaks Condominium and the Knox Heritage Seniors Place), and a natural heritage area system, including trees and ravine features. The Nipigon Trail winds through the natural areas, connecting to the trail in the Hydro Corridor and the local road network (Sixth Line) both to the east and west of the Subject Site. Within the broader context of the River Oaks Community, there is a Community Centre, parklands, and other public services and amenities.

12The Subject Site is comprised of two parcels, having a combined irregular shape, with approximately 165 metres ("m") frontage along Sixth Line and 10 m on River Oaks Boulevard East, and a total area of 7,200 square metres ("sq m"). There are a total of four (4) commercial buildings, containing convenience and service commercial, medical office uses, along with a surface parking lot(s) situated on the Subject Site. More particularly, there are three (3) one-storey buildings with a surface parking on the parcel at 2163 Sixth Line and a one-storey building with medical office uses, including dentist and physiotherapist on the 2169 Sixth Line parcel. 2163 Sixth line has two driveway accesses to Sixth line, and 2169 Sixth Line shares a driveway access to Sixth Line with the Oaks Condominium and Knox Heritage Seniors Place.

13The Settlement Proposal/Plans contemplate the re-development of the Subject Site for an eight-(8) storey residential building, containing a total of 237 dwelling units, and 1,170 sq m of non-residential gross floor area ("GFA") to accommodate a variety of commercial uses, including the relocation of existing medical offices. The details of the Settlement Proposal/Plans are found at Tab F in Exhibit 1.

14The Settlement Proposal/Plans propose an 'L-shaped' building having a total GFA of 19,191 sq m, comprised of 17,515 sq m residential, 1,170 sq m retail/commercial and medical office, and 506 sq m indoor amenity, and a resulting gross density of 2.76 Floor Space Index ("FSI").

15Mr. Charezenko provided evidence related to the revisions between the Original Proposal and the Settlement Proposal/Plans which is summarized below:

Standard	Original Proposal (July 2022)	Settlement Plans (November 2023)
Site Area	7,200 sq m	7,200 sq m
Gross Floor Area Retail Gross Floor Area Residential Gross Floor Area	20,050 sq m 777 sq m 18,711 sq m	18,685 sq m 1,170 sq m 17,515 sq m
Overall Density	2.78 FSI	2.55 FSI
Building Height	9 storeys (28.8 m plus rooftop mechanical)	8 storeys (26.8 m plus rooftop mechanical)
Total Units Bachelor Units 1-Bedroom Units 2-Bedroom Units 3-Bedroom Units	247 units 2 units 60 units 173 units 12 units	237 units 0 units 66 units 164 units 7 units
Vehicle Parking Spaces	244 spaces	273 spaces
Bicycle Parking Spaces	86 spaces	86 spaces
Amenity Space Indoor Amenity Space Outdoor Amenity Space	1,404 sq m 562 sq m 842 sq m	1,428 sq m 506 sq m 922 sq m

16The building and site plan have been designed such that development of the site may be phased, enabling the existing medical offices to continue operation until such time that the new building is constructed and those uses can be relocated into the new at-grade space. Following which, the medical office building may be demolished and the second access and additional parking may be constructed.

17It is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that the Settlement Proposal/Plans are appropriate and desirable and represent good planning.

18The Settlement Proposal/Plans would be implemented by way of approval of the OPA (Exhibit 2) and ZBA (Exhibit 3) – see Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order.

19The purpose of the OPA is to re-designate the portion of the Subject Site designated Neighbourhoods Commercial to High Density Residential to permit an 8-storey residential building, a maximum density of 330 units per hectare, a minimum of 1,170 sq m of commercial floor area, and a variety of Neighbourhood Commercial uses on the ground floor. No changes are proposed to the portion of the Subject Site designated Natural Areas.

20The purpose and effect of the ZBA is to permit residential uses, increase building height, regulate the permitted building envelope and establish other development standards to implement the Settlement Proposal/Plans.

PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS

21Mr. Charezenko considered the applicable land use planning policy and provided his opinion as to how the Settlement Proposal/Plans met the applicable policy tests at the provincial, regional, and local levels.

22On matters of Provincial interest, he opines that the s. 2 h), j) and q) provisions of the Act are particularly relevant and that the Settlement Proposal/Plans will optimize use of land and infrastructure; provide transit supportive development; and increase housing supply while also accommodating the commercial uses within a walkable environment; all of which is consistent with the public interest.

23On consistency with the PPS, he opined that the Settlement Proposal/Plans are consistent with the policies regarding intensification within existing Settlement Area(s); a desirable mix of residential and other land uses; the utilization of existing infrastructure; efficient development patterns; and the provision of variety and appropriate mix of housing types at an appropriate scale that is able to rely on existing recreation, parks and open spaces in the River Oak Community. He opines that the Settlement Proposal/Plans will assist in meeting the long-term needs of the community.

24On conformity with the Growth Plan, he opined that the Settlement Proposal/Plans support the goal of complete communities; healthy and active living; planned density; transit supportive development; and range and mix of housing options within the community which will assist in achieving the minimum intensification targets of the Growth Plan for delineated Built-Up Areas.

25On conformity with the Region of Halton Official Plan ("ROP"), he opined that the Settlement Proposal/Plan conforms to the growth management, land use, economic and natural heritage policies of the ROP, by providing compact, transit supportive infill development that aims to increase housing variety and supply. It is his opinion that the Settlement Proposal/Plans will complete the surrounding community; contribute to 50 percent of new growth being within the existing boundary of the Region; and ensuring no loss to natural heritage features.

26On conformity with the Livable Oakville Plan ("OP"), but for the amendment(s) sought, it is his opinion that the OP provides for intensification of the residential areas provided that the character of the area is preserved, and the overall urban structure of the Town is upheld and that the Settlement Proposal/Plans conform. In this regard, he opines that the Subject Site is significantly influenced by its relationship with the Natural Heritage System, providing suitable landscaped setting for the scale of the proposal, and that the height and massing of the Settlement Proposal/Plans have been designed to sensitively transition to the low density residential uses across Sixth Line. It is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that the proposed OPA is appropriate.

27The Subject Site is currently zoned "Neighbourhood Commercial C1-128" pursuant to the ZBL. A rezoning is required to permit the Settlement Proposal/Plans. It is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that the proposed ZBL is appropriate.

28The Town of Oakville Livable by Design Manual provides guiding principles intended to reinforce the policy direction and design approach outlined in the urban Design policies of the OP. It is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that the Settlement Proposal/Plans are consistent with the six guiding principles set out in the Livable by Design Manual, and will provide a built form that will enhance the character of the neighbourhood by improving an underutilized site with an appropriately scaled design that responds well to the surrounding context.

29In summary, it was Mr. Charezenko's uncontroverted expert opinion that the Settlement Proposal/Plans to be implemented through the OPA and ZBA represent good planning and urban design, have regard to matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms to the ROP and the OP.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS

30Mr. Charezenko also provided the Tribunal with an overview of his consideration of the Participant Statements and other Public Comments filed by Marcus Dillon, Samy Beshay, David Sweezie, and Julia Kelly found in Exhibit 1 at Tabs O, P, Q and R, respectively. The concerns are predominantly related to the Original Proposal and are summarized as: traffic, parking, height and massing of the proposed building, amount of commercial space, public safety and natural heritage system/environmental impacts on the low density residential community.

31Traffic – The Tribunal heard evidence that that Sixth Line is a Minor Arterial road which is intended to serve local traffic of moderate to high volumes and to accommodate public transit and active transportation, and that Sixth Line is characterized as having a concentration of community amenities along it, including a community centre, multiple schools (including high school), places of worship, and a mix of residential building types (including medium and high-density). It is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that Sixth Line is an appropriate context for the Settlement Proposal/Plans from a traffic perspective.

32Parking – The Tribunal heard evidence that the Settlement Proposal/Plans include 273 parking spaces, an increase of 29 spaces from the original Proposal. Also, the shared parking facilities on the 2169 Sixth Line parcel will be replaced in the Settlement Proposal/Plans.

33Height and Massing – The Tribunal heard evidence that the Settlement Proposal/Plans represent a reduction in height and massing from the Original Proposal, which is intended to help mitigate built form impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. Moreover, the decrease in building height, step backs and setbacks area to provide better transitions along Sixth Line to low density residential areas and the neighbouring Oaks Condominium and Knox Heritage Seniors Place 4-storey buildings.

34Commercial Space – The Original Proposal had less commercial space (777 sq m) and there were concerns, perhaps as to whether the existing commercial and medical office uses could be accommodated. The Settlement Proposal/Plans include a minimum of 1,170 sq m GFA as opposed to the 777 sq m in the Original Porposal. The Tribunal also heard evidence that the existing medical offices will be accommodated in the new building and, as noted previously in this decision, the development will be phased to allow for these uses to continue to operate during construction.

35Natural Heritage System/Environmental Impacts – The evidence in the Hearing supports that there will be no loss in natural heritage features or alteration to Natural Areas on or adjacent to the Subject Site. Further, it is Mr. Charezenko's opinion that the natural areas are well vegetated, provide a buffer and suitable transition zone to existing low density residential areas.

36Public Safety – The Tribunal heard evidence that the public realm will contribute to public safety and that the Settlement Proposal/Plans incorporates a mix of uses designed to activate the public realm along Sixth line, and that the orientation of these uses will generate more 'eyes on the street'. The retail commercial and medical office space is to be located at-grade and directly accessible from the sidewalk on Sixth Line. There are four (4) townhouse units along the Sixth Line frontage with direct connection to the sidewalk.

37In conclusion, Mr. Charezenko opined that the Settlement Proposal fits appropriately in its surrounding context and aligns with the regional and local municipal policies related to growth management, natural heritage and housing priorities, and the Town's urban design principles.

38It is Mr. Charezenko's expert opinion that the Settlement Proposal/Plans have regard for matters of Provincial interest, represent good planning and are in the public interest.

FINDINGS

39Having considered Mr. Chareznko's expert opinion evidence, the Tribunal accepts it in its entirety. On that basis, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal/Plans are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, and conform with the ROP and OP, and align with the Town of Oakville's urban design manual.

40The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal/Plans as presented are appropriate and desirable, in that they will contribute to much needed housing supply, through additional variety of housing type(s) within the River Oaks community, will provide retail and personal service commercial uses and will maintain the existing medical office uses.

41The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA are appropriate to facilitate the re-development of the Subject Site for the provision of much needed housing supply in a manner that fits within its local context, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

42In making its decision on the appeals before it, the Tribunal has had regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal/Plans will facilitate development that is in the public's interest.

43The Tribunal has had regard for the decision of Council, and the information and materials before it. The Tribunal acknowledges the Town's consent to the Settlement Proposal/Plans.

44In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeals in part, and approves the OPA and ZBA.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

(a) the appeals by Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. are allowed in part;

(b) the Official Plan for the Town of Oakville is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; and

(c) the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-14 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

"S. L. Dionne"

S. L. DIONNE 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