Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001036
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(14) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brundale Fine Homes Ltd.
Subject: Application for Consent – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To sever a 835.60 m2 residential parcel of land, retaining a 835.64 m2 residential parcel of land. Existing dwelling is to be demolished
Reference Number: LD 2023/41
Property Address: 25 Johnathan Street
Municipality/UT: Uxbridge/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001036
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001036
OLT Case Name: Brundale Fine Homes Ltd. v. Uxbridge (Township)
Heard: January 11, 2024 by Video Hearing and March 28, 2024 by Written Submissions
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Brundale Fine Homes
P. DeMelo
Town of Uxbridge
A. Ray
Regional Municipality of Durham
C. Boyd
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Brundale Fine Homes (“Appellant”) arising from the deferral of the Consent Application (“Consent”) by the Land Division Committee (“LDC”) of the Town of Uxbridge (“Town”), pursuant to s. 53(14) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property municipally known as 25 Jonathan Street (“subject property” / “site”).
2The subject property is rectangular in shape, with 29.05 metres (“m”) of street frontage on the south side of Jonathan Street, a lot depth of 57.53 m and a lot area of approximately 1,671 square metres (“m2”).
3The site currently contains a two-storey single detached dwelling from the 70s, has a Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 175 m2 and is currently zoned as "Urban Residential Type One" (R1).
STATUS REQUEST
4The Tribunal did not receive any status requests for this matter.
5The original Application was before the LDC on July 10, 2023. The Appellant is seeking to create two new residential lots with lot frontages of 14.525 m and lot areas of 835.5 m2 to facilitate the development of two (2) single-detached residential dwellings.
6At the initial public hearing, the Township Planning Department recommended deferring the Application until such time as the Applicant demonstrated compliance with the applicable Township Official Plan (“TOP”) provisions for Consent. The LDC deferred the application in accordance with the recommendation.
7Prior to the formal Public Hearing, the Appellant submitted to the Township an updated Planning Justification Report, which provided further clarification as to the application’s conformity with Section 14.8 of the Region of Durham (“Region”) Official Plan (“ROP”) and Section 2.5.5.3.1 of the TOP. Despite that, the Township deferred the application.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
8At the onset of the Hearing, Mr. DeMelo indicated that the Appellant was working with Counsel for the Region and the Town, and that there was a revision to be made to the proposal. The Town is seeking to have a pedestrian walkway constructed along the westerly boundary of the property that would be 2 m wide. The Municipality will purchase that strip of land from the Appellant to construct a sidewalk. Due to the acquisition of the land by the Town, the revised proposal is a severance of two lots with frontages of 15.525 m of the westerly lot and 13.525 m of the easterly lot, and lot areas of 893.25 m2 and 778.09 m2, respectively. Once the purchase of the 2 m strip for the sidewalk is completed, both lots will have the same 13.525 m frontages.
9Pursuant to s. 53(35) and (35.1) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow amendments to a Consent application without the requirement for further public notice if it is of the opinion that such amendments are minor by virtue of s. 53(35) and (35.1) of the Act.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10Jim Kotsopoulos, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Ontario Professional Planner’s Institute, and a Registered Professional Planner with over 35 years of experience, appeared on behalf of the Appellant in support of the appeal.
11In his viva voce evidence, Mr. Kotsopoulos stated that despite the revisions to the original Application, his planning analysis did not change.
12Mr. Kotsopoulos reviewed the applicable policy sections of the Act, and appropriate regard has been given to provisions listed in s. 51(24) and s. 53(12).
13Mr. Kotsopoulos brought to the Tribunal’s attention relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”). Specifically, policies 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, and 1.4.3 that direct development to established settlement areas where infrastructure exists, encourages efficient land use patterns while encouraging an appropriate range and mix of residential housing, and provides that the municipality’s Official Plan is the main implementation tool for the PPS.
14Mr. Kotsopoulos assessed policies pertinent to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (“GP”) and proffered that the proposed Consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject property for proposed low-density residential purposes, thereby contributing positively towards the regeneration of homes within the surrounding neighbourhood.
15Mr. Kotsopoulos analysed the relevant policies of the Durham Region Official Plan (“DROP”). He submitted that the proposed development achieves the desired neighbourhood investment without undermining area stability. Using quality design and materials and the provision of quality landscaping, the proposed dwellings will enhance the quality of the public street. In his view, the proposed dwellings achieve the desired built-form relationships to adjacent properties and the public street.
16It is his opinion that the Consent fulfills the provisions regulating lot creation and their associated requirements under Section 14.8 of the DROP.
17Mr. Kotsopoulos reviewed relevant policies of the Town’s Official Plan (“TOP”) and concluded that, in his opinion, the Consent is consistent with the provisions of Section 2.5.5.2 of the TOP. The proposed lot standards meet the requirements of the zoning by-law with the exception of lot frontage, where proposed setbacks, height, coverage, landscaped area, and lot area are as-of-right.
18In Mr. Kotsopoulos’ view, the new dwelling units shall be of a design that respects the architecture of the surrounding neighbourhood in an area that is within a close proximity to the Uxbridge Downtown area.
19Mr. Kotsopoulos submitted that the proposed Consent is compatible with all of the zoning by-law provisions, other than the lot frontages. He proffered that the development proposal does not seek to rezone the property, nor does it require a Zoning By-law Amendment Application.
20Mr. Kotsopoulos concluded that, in his view, the proposal is supportive of Provincial, Regional and Local policies and does not undermine the municipality’s goals related to the protection and preservation of the Town’s existing neighbourhoods.
21Further, it represents appropriate development and use of land and building reinvestment in mature neighbourhoods, and as such, the proposal maintains the stability and integrity of the existing surroundings without creating any adverse negative impacts.
MINOR VARIANCES
22The reduced lot frontages outlined in paragraph [8] require a Minor Variance (“MV”) Application. That Application is not before the Tribunal, rather Mr. DeMello asked the Tribunal to withhold its decision until such time that the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) could review the Application and render a decision.
23On March 28, 2024, the Tribunal received a decision of the COA dated February 21, 2024, indicating that the Application has met the requirements of Section 45(2) of the Act.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24In its Decision, the Tribunal has accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence of Mr. Kotsopoulos and took into consideration the decision of the COA. The Tribunal finds that the Consent Application satisfies the applicable provisions of the Act, DROP, and TOP.
CONCLUSION
25The Tribunal is satisfied that the revised set of Conditions is appropriate for the Consent application for the subject property.
ORDER
26The Tribunal, having been asked to consider an application, which has been amended from the original application, has determined that no further notice is required in accordance with s. 53(35) and (35.1) of the Planning Act.
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 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
That a Qualified Person complete and sign the Regional Site-Screening Questionnaire for the property in accordance the Region of Durham’s Soil and Groundwater Assessment Protocol;
That a “Noise Impact Study” be submitted to support the proposed two new single-detached dwelling units and any noise control recommendations be included in the related Site Plan/Development Agreement with the Township of Uxbridge;
That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham concerning the provision of Regional services, financial and otherwise;
That the applicant provide the Land Division Secretary all required documentation and stamping fees required to process the deeds;
A copy of the registered reference plan; and,
The applicant has two years from the date of the decision to fulfill all conditions otherwise the application will lapse. The applicant also has one additional month to acquire the Consent Certificate from the Secretary Treasurer of the Regional Land Division Committee.