Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 03, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000381
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Dotty Lake Retreats Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the construction of a four-storey 24 unit stacked townhouses
Reference Number:
OZS22-015
Property Address:
140 Hadati Road
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000381
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000381
OLT Case Name:
Dotty Lake Retreats Inc. v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Dotty Lake Retreats Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the construction of a four-storey 24 unit stacked townhouses
Reference Number:
OZS22-015
Property Address:
140 Hadati Road
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000382
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000381
Heard:
February 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Dotty Lake Retreats Inc.
Jennifer Meader
City of Guelph
Allison Thornton
Ian White (Student at Law)
MEMORANDUM OF oral decision DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON FEBRUARY 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This hearing was convened to hear the proposed settlement between Dotty Lake Retreats Inc. (“Appellant”) and the City of Guelph (“City”) with respect to applications submitted by the Appellant for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendments (“ZBLAs”) for the property known municipally as 140 Hadati Road (“Subject Property”).
2Trevor Hawkins was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning and provided uncontested and uncontroverted evidence in support of the proposed settlement. The following exhibits were marked at the hearing:
a. Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Trevor Hawkins
b. Exhibit 3 – Executed Minutes of Settlement
PROPERTY CONTEXT
3The Subject Property borders three streets: Hadati Road, Leacock Avenue, and Upton Crescent. Access to the property is provided via Leacock Avenue and Upton Crescent. Hadati Road serves as a ‘Collector Road’ in the community. Leacock Avenue and Upton Crescent are local streets that each connect with Hadati Road and generally provide access to the existing residential properties in the area. Connections to the pedestrian network are provided from all three street frontages via sidewalk connections.
4At present, the Subject Property is zoned Convenience Commercial (C-1) with a single-storey vacant commercial building and a large surface parking lot. The commercial building is situated at the north end of the property, close to the two adjacent residential properties, with surface parking located between the building and Hadati Road.
5The Subject Property is approximately 0.25 hectares in area. It is a municipally serviced lot located within walking distance of two bus routes, and with parks, trails, schools, a commercial plaza, and a community centre in close proximity. The surrounding uses of the site are predominantly low-rise residential.
APPLICATION HISTORY
6The original OPA and original ZBLA (“Original Applications”) for a townhouse development were submitted to the City on July 29, 2022, and were deemed complete by the City on August 26, 2022. The Original OPA Application requested a Special Policy Area for the Subject Property to permit an increase in the maximum permitted density from 35 units per hectare to 95 units per hectare and an increase in the maximum permitted height from three storeys to four storeys to permit the development of 24 stacked townhomes in a single building.
7The Original ZBLA requested to change the zoning of the Subject Property from “Convenience Commercial (C-1)” to “Specialized Residential Cluster Townhouse (R.3A-X)” in Zoning By-law No. (1995) -14864 (“ZBL 1995”), with the following special provisions:
a. Multiple Attached Dwelling’ shall also be permitted;
b. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 105 square metres;
c. The minimum front yard setback (Leacock Avenue) shall be 3 metres;
d. The maximum building height shall be 3.5 storeys; and,
e. That visitor parking be provided at a rate of 8.3% or 2 spaces for 24 units.
8In consideration of the comments of City Staff and the public, the Original Application was amended by the Appellant on April 13, 2023. The revisions included modified parking, revisions to pedestrian movement, the inclusion of bicycle parking, and shifting the building further from Leacock Avenue to increase the setback from 3 metres to 4.5 metres. The Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal on April 27, 2023, based on the City’s failure to make a decision within the requisite timeframe, pursuant to subsections 22(7), 34(11), and 34(11.0.0.0.1) of the Planning Act.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
9Since the first CMC was held on this matter in August 2023, the Parties have remained in communication and settlement discussions, which culminated in executed Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”), which include the Proposed OPA and Proposed ZBLA for ZBL 1995.
10The Proposed Development is for a townhouse block of twenty-four units, which are stacked both vertically and horizontally. The existing commercial building on site will be demolished. A definition for this townhouse concept was included with the amendments to provide clarity with respect to what constitutes a stacked townhouse for this site. In addition, clauses were added to exempt the development from the maximum number of units permitted in a side-by-side block. Entry into the townhouses is via raised stairs either up or down a half flight of stairs with the exterior entrances facing Hadati Road. As the landings extend beyond the building face, an amendment to the ZBL is required. Vehicular access will be provided via Leacock Avenue and Upton Crescent, in the same general location as the two existing driveways, and sidewalk connections will be provided to Hadati Road and Upton Crescent. Additional clauses were added with respect to the common amenity area, which will be located near the intersection of Hadati Road and Upton Crescent and a minimum amount of private amenity space, either a patio or balcony, per unit.
11The Proposed OPA is consistent with the Original OPA application – proposing an increase in density to 95 units per hectare and a maximum height of four storeys.
12The Proposed ZBA revisions to ZBL 1995 to affect the Proposed Development include:
Amend the zoning for the site from Convenience Commercial (C-1) to Specialize Residential Cluster Townhouse (R.3A-X);
Removal of ‘Multiple Attached Dwelling’ as a permitted use and adding the following definition: “For the purposes of this Zone, a Stacked Townhouse is defined as: 1 Building or Structure containing 2 or more Townhouse units, which are horizontally and vertically divided”;
Add a provision that density is to be measured in units per hectare, that the maximum permitted density shall be 95 units per hectare, and that the minimum lot area per unit regulation does not apply;
The front yard setback (Leacock Avenue) was increased from 3 metres to 4.5 metres;
Permissions for projections associated with stacked townhouses to encroach into the required exterior side yard were added;
Common amenity and private amenity area provisions were added;
Parking dimensions and locations were added; and
The maximum number of dwelling units in a row is stated to not apply to the Subject Property.
CITY OF GUELPH ZONING BY-LAW (2023)-20790
13The City of Guelph approved a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (2023)-20790 (“ZBL 2023”) in April 2023. This by-law was subsequently appealed and remains under appeal. As the Original Application predated ZBL 2023, the Original Application did not include site-specific provisions to address the new by-law.
14The Parties informed the Tribunal at the Settlement Hearing that, with respect to the Proposed Development, they had agreed upon amendments to ZBL 1995, as well as anticipated amendments to ZBL 2023, all of which were set out in the MOS. It was requested by the Parties at the Settlement Hearing that the Tribunal issue an Interim Order with respect to the Original Application for amendments to the City of Guelph Official Plan and ZBL 1995, and that the Member remain seized of the matter to provide approval for a future by-law amendment to ZBL 2023 for the Subject Property, once that new Comprehensive Zoning By-law came into effect.
15In this case, the proposed amendment to ZBL 2023 was not appealed in this proceeding and was therefore not properly before the Tribunal. As set out in section 34(26) of the Planning Act which sets out the powers of the Tribunal with respect to a zoning by-law, subsection (b) states that the Tribunal may,
on an appeal under subsection (11) or (19), amend the by-law in such a manner as the Tribunal may determine or direct the council of the municipality to amend the by-law in accordance with the Tribunal’s order;
Consequently, the Tribunal only has the authority to approve or amend the by-law that is before it and not any other by-law or instrument.
16The Appellant’s appeal of ZBL 2023, as it relates to the Proposed Development, would have to be consolidated or heard together with the Appeal that is currently before the Member. As this is not the case, the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to issue an Order with respect to the anticipated by-law amendment of ZBL 2023, as it relates to the Subject Property. The Parties are reminded that the Tribunal does not approve or enforce MOS, it is the components of the OPA and ZBLA, which were appealed to the Tribunal that are the subject of the adjudicative process. While it may seem inefficient to require the Appellant to submit a future application with the City to amend ZBL 2023 with respect to the Proposed Development, given the fact that the details have already been discussed and set out in the MOS, the City should be in possession of the information necessary to make its decision.
EVIDENCE
17Mr. Hawkins’s evidence was that the proposed redevelopment was an efficient use of land that was sensitive to the surrounding context. That it was an efficient use of municipal services, community amenities, and transit infrastructure and would provide more attainable housing in the community. The Planner opined that the Proposed OPA and ZBLA had regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
18With respect to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), Mr. Hawkins explained that the proposed development is located within the Urban Area and Built-Up Area of Guelph, which is a designated Settlement Area. It was Mr. Hawkins position that the proposed development broadens housing choices in the area while proposing a built form that is compatible with the surrounding low-rise. Further, he stated that it represented an intensification of an under-utilized property within the Built- Up Area on full municipal services without requiring further public investment in additional infrastructure.
19When providing evidence with respect to the proposed development’s conformity with the 2020 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), Mr. Hawkins testified that the Subject Property is designated as being within a ‘Built-Up Area’ on Schedule 4 of the Growth Plan and implemented as a ‘Built-Up Area’ on Schedule 1A to the City of Guelph Official Plan (City OP”). He also referenced the fact that the proposed development would further the goals of achieving a complete community, and he commented on the site’s proximity to parks, schools, and recreation services. Mr. Hawkins also opined that the proposed development would broaden the range of housing mix for those in the community while maintaining compatibility with other “ground floor housing” in the area.
20The Planner also provided oral evidence with respect to the proposed development’s conformity with the City OP. In general terms, the City OP supports the achievement of complete communities, and Mr. Hawkins stated that this project would broaden the range of housing in the area. The development required no expansion of infrastructure or changes to the road network. Mr. Hawkins explained that the Proposed Development is situated closer to the Collector Road - Hadati Road, which provides more separation from adjacent residential housing to the north. The Tribunal was taken to Section 9.3.1.1 of the City OP, which lists the criteria for a multi-unit residential development. Mr. Hawkins opined that the Proposed Development met these criteria.
21Mr. Hawkins described in broad terms the site-specific amendments to ZBL 1995 that would be required for the stacked townhouse-built form and opined that these regulations were appropriate for the site. The Planner noted that these amendments provided clarity with respect to the planned form of the development, including where the building will be situated on site and the location and size of parking spaces. Mr. Hawkins explained that the landscape buffer strip on the ‘Leacock Avenue’ side of the site was removed in order to provide more on-site parking, and the building was moved closer to Hadati Road in order to provide more separation from the two residential units to the north of the Subject Property. Mr. Hawkins opined that the proposed amendments to ZBL 2023, which is not yet in effect, or before the Tribunal, were also reasonable and appropriate.
PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS
22Mr. Hawkins reviewed the Participant Statements that were filed on this matter and provided his response to the concerns raised therein. He stated that the supply of visitor parking on site has been increased, that each unit would have its own dedicated parking space and that 6 on-site visitor spaces were provided. As such, the Proposed Development did not require relief from City parking requirements. With respect to traffic volume, the Planner noted that the City’s Traffic Service Staff supported the application and that traffic would be directed onto Hadati Road which, as a ‘Collector Road’, was appropriate. He also noted that the City did not require a traffic study due to the small size of the development. The Tribunal was also reminded that the Subject Property is in a walkable and bicycle friendly neighbourhood and that the site provides for 16 covered bicycle parking spaces.
23Another issue raised in the Participant Statements was with respect to snow removal. Mr. Hawkins framed this as a concern related to on-street parking, as an increase in the number of cars parked on the street would impact snow removal and the ploughing of the streets. The Planner’s response was that the site provided adequate visitor parking and that the City would review the removal of snow within the site as part of the site plan review process, including the review and approval by the City of a Grading and Drainage Plan and related Stormwater Management Report.
24With respect to shadow impacts, Mr. Hawkins explained that City standards did not require a shadow impact study for a low-rise building of this scale nor did the City request that such a study be commissioned with respect to this development. The removal of any trees would be evaluated through the more detailed site plan process, and tree preservation reports would be filed at that time. Mr. Hawkins also noted that the landscape buffer of three metres in width was designed with the intent of preserving as many healthy trees as possible and that a Tree Preservation Plan would be provided with the Site Plan Application.
FINDINGS
25The Tribunal finds that this is a suitable infill development in an appropriate location that is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan and City of Guelph’s Official Plan, has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, and is representative of good land use planning in the public interest.
26The Subject Property will be revitalized through this planned infill development. The Tribunal notes that the City OP plans for and anticipates significant portions of new residential growth to be accommodated through intensification in the City’s built-up areas. The redevelopment of an existing vacant commercial plaza into a stacked townhouse building with 24 units located within an existing neighbourhood represents an efficient use of land, resources, and infrastructure.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT the appeal filed by Dotty Lakes Retreats Inc. is allowed, in part, and that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for Zoning By-law (1995)-14864 as set out respectively in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order are hereby approved.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
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