PTC Ownership LP v. Pickering (City), 2024 CanLII 40889

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 02, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000150

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

Applicant and Appellant: PTC Ownership LP

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: MV to facilitate a mixed-use development through a reduced minimum parking ratio

Reference Number: P/CA 52/23

Property Address: 1355 Kingston Road

Municipality/UT: City of Pickering

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000150

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000150

OLT Case Name: PTC Ownership LP v. Pickering (City)

Heard: April 18, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
PTC Ownership LP (“Appellant”)	Joe Hoffman
City of Pickering (“City”)	(Did not appear)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON APRIL 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by PTC Ownership LP under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) that refused an application for a minor variance (“Application”) to reduce the minimum parking ratio to 0.5 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit, whereas the By-law requires a minimum parking ratio of 0.65 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit.

2The Application affects the land known as 1355 Kingston Road in the City (“Subject Property”). In early 2023 the City Council approved a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the Subject Property which facilitates the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of nine development blocks for high-density residential, office, and commercial uses and one parkland block. The Pickering Town Centre Shopping Mall is also located on the Subject Property. The Application was submitted in October 2023, for the relief noted above from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7981/23.

3The COA met in January 2024 to consider the Application and a City Planning Staff Report supporting the Application with an added condition related to the blocks of the development that the minor variance request would apply. The COA refused the Application on the basis that the request was not minor in nature.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4An 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 four tests set out under s. 45(1) have been met. The four tests are:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
2. maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
3. be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
4. be minor in nature.

5In addition to the four tests, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interests as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act.

EVIDENCE

6The Tribunal was notified before the Hearing that the City would not be participating in the proceedings.

7The Tribunal, at the request of the Appellant and having reviewed the credentials of Sabrina Sgotto, qualified her to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Ms. Sgotto is a registered professional planner with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. She has previously been qualified as an expert witness by the Tribunal.

8As evidence, three documents were marked as exhibits:

1. Exhibit 1: Notice of Hearing;
2. Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Sabrina Sgotto; and
3. Exhibit 3: Visual Evidence.

9The Tribunal heard the uncontested planning evidence from Ms. Sgotto in support of the Application. She provided a complete overview of the Application process and a description of the Subject Property and adjacent lands before addressing provincial, regional and city planning policies relevant to this appeal.

10Regarding the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), Ms. Sgotto opined that the reduced parking ratio requested is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan. In particular, she proffered that the reduction in parking spaces supports goals related to promoting healthy living given the Subject Property’s proximity to a GO Transit station and many bus stops.

11Regarding the Regional Official Plan (“ROP”) and City Official Plan (“COP”), Ms. Sgotto opined that the reduced parking ratio maintains the general purpose and intent of the policies within both. She proffered that the proposed development, and specifically the requested minor variance, prioritizes pedestrian movement and the use of transit. She also opined that the reduced parking rate “provides incentive for implementing higher density, mixed-use development” as per policy 8A.2.16 of the ROP.

12Ms. Sgotto opined that the parking reduction supports the population targets set out in the COP in its promotion of high-density, mixed-use development. She referred the Tribunal to various policies of the COP, which refer to reducing parking spaces in support of more active living choices, such as walking or cycling.

13Ms. Sgotto opined that the reduction in the parking ratio is supported by an analysis contained in the Transportation Justification Letter found in Exhibit 2, which states that the parking standards required in the Zoning By-law “overstate the parking needs of a residential building in an urban context.” Ms. Sgotto proffered that the reduction requested is in line with “the general trends across the Greater Toronto Area and are reflective of parking standards in other areas near transportation infrastructure.”

14Regarding the questions related to the appropriate use of the land and whether the request is minor in nature, Ms. Sgotto opined that if approved, the change contributes to the transformation to creating a more walkable area and increases the use of existing and future transportation infrastructure, and is a minor change that, as noted above, does not present an adverse impact on the surrounding lands or the intended functions of the proposed development.

15Ms. Sgotto addressed the issues raised in a letter received by the COA, and the Tribunal is satisfied with her analysis and opinions on these matters. In particular, she opined that they generally were concerns related to the proposal as a whole and not specific to the Application.

FINDINGS

16In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontroverted planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Ms. Sgotto and the Planning Staff Report referred to throughout the Hearing in support of the Application.

17The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that in summary represents a minor element of an otherwise approved development proposal. The reduction in parking aligns with the intent of the provincial, regional and local planning documents as outlined above and is good planning.

18The Tribunal provided an oral decision on this matter and approved the minor variance to reduce the minimum parking ratio per apartment dwelling unit, as outlined in paragraph [1], and approved the following condition, recommended by City Planning Staff, with the consent of the Appellant:

That this variance applies only to Block 1 and Blocks 3 to 10 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2021-02, located on the eastern portion of the Pickering Town Centre lands, as illustrated on the attached draft plan of subdivision (Exhibit 2).

ORDER

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7981/23, to reduce the minimum parking ratio to 0.5 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit from 0.65 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit, is approved for Block 1 and Blocks 3 to 10 within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2021-02.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM 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.