CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000281

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): May 30, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2024

RE: TRG Casablanca Inc v. Town of Grimsby

Correction to: In the Appearances, “Did not participate” will be removed as per all parties in agreement.

Originally:

Corrected to:

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

TRF Casablanca Inc. Denise Baker

Town of Grimsby Tom Halinski (Did not participate)

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

TRF Casablanca Inc. Denise Baker Town of Grimsby Tom Halinski

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR

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.

ISSUE DATE:

May 30, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000281

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

Applicant/Appellant

TRG Casablanca Inc.

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To reduce minimum parking ratio

Reference Number:

A20-23

Property Address:

4 Windward Drive

Municipality/UT:

Grimsby/Niagara

OLT Case No:

OLT-24-000281

OLT LeadCase No:

OLT-24-000281

OLT Case Name:

TRG Casablanca Inc v. Town of Grimsby

Heard:

May 17, 2024, in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

TRF Casablanca Inc.

Denise Baker

Town of Grimsby

Tom Halinski (Did not participate)

DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was set to commence by video on May 17, 2024, to hear the merits of the Minor Variance Application (“MV Application”) pertaining to the lands Municipally known as 4 Windward Drive (“Subject Properties”) in the Town of Grimsby (“Town”). The hearing was converted to be held in writing following confirmation that no Party or Participant requests were filed prior to 10 days of the scheduled hearing and, communication received from the Town indicating that they “do not oppose the approval of the variance as applied for” and that the Town did not plan to participate in the hearing.

2The written materials before the Tribunal were:

a. Exhibit 1 – Document Book (428 Pages)

b. Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of David Falletta (29 Pages)

c. Exhibit 3 –Affidavit of Brandon Bradt (17 Pages)

d. Exhibit 4 – Variances Requested (1 Page)

3To support the MV Application the Tribunal, based on their respective Curriculum Vitae and executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty forms, qualifies David Falletta and Brandon Bradt to provide written opinion evidence in land use planning and transportation engineering, respectively.

BACKGROUND

4The Subject Properties are approximately 1.05 hectares in area and are located on the north side of Windward Drive, south of Winston Road and east of North Service

Road in the Town and are currently occupied by an eight-storey hotel, known as the Casablanca Winery and Inn.

5TRG Casablanca Inc. (“Applicant” or “Appellant”) seeks to redevelop the Subject Properties by demolishing the existing hotel and constructing a mixed-use development consisting of two towers at 15-storeys (“West Tower”) and 25 storeys (“East Tower”). The West Tower is proposed to include 50 hotel suites, 250 residential condominium units and 607 square meters (“sq m”) of retail space at grade level. The East Tower is proposed to have 383 residential condominium units and 545 sq m of retail space at grade level.

6To permit the proposed redevelopment the Applicants sought the following relief from the Town Zoning By-law 14-45:

7The MV Applications came before the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on February 21, 2024. The Planning Report prepared for the COA provided the recommendation that “Planning Staff have no objection to the minor variances proposed by the Applicant”. The COA approved three of the four requested variances, denying the minimum parking rate reduction.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

8An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo. In this case, the Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met.

9Mr. Falletta and Mr. Bradt provided the Tribunal with fulsome witness statements (Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively), each expressing the opinion that the proposed developments has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), the Niagara Region Official Plan (“NOP”) and the Town’s Official Plan (“TOP”).

10Mr. Bradt, whom is a Transportation Engineer and Manager of Transportation Planning with C.F. Crozier & Associates Inc. (“Crozier”) reviewed the May 2023 Parking Justification Study that was prepared by Crozier. The report concluded the following:

a. Existing transit routes will support the development by providing access to both Toronto and Niagara Falls via GO Transit. Additionally, Niagara currently provides On-Demand transit services for the cost of a traditional bus fare to support last and first mile connection to GO services.

b. Three proxy sites were surveyed in consultation with Town staff and similar or lower occupancy rates were found at each of the proxy site for combined resident and visitor use.

c. Other nearby municipalities including Hamilton and St. Catharines have parking rates which are lower than the Town of Grimsby’s and the proposed development would meet those relevant By-law requirements.

d. The proposed parking rate is supported by the existing pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure as well as proposed Transportation Demand Management measures including bicycle parking and car-share spaces to reduce auto vehicle ownership rates and provide a viable alternative for daily commuting purposes.

11Mr. Bradt opined that based on the May 2023 Parking Study, he can support the proposed development from a parking justification perspective, based on the previously reviewed proxy site demand within the study.

12Mr. Falletta opined that the requested variances, both individually and cumulatively, satisfy the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act for the following reasons:

a. Maintains the intent and purpose of the TOP:

i. Provides a new mixed-use development with at-grade commercial, along with residential and hotel units that are consistent with the mixed use designation on a site that is underutilized, supporting the intensification targets of the Town, and reducing automobile use in high-density areas.

b. Maintains the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”):

i. The height increase maintains an appropriately built form and does not create any unacceptable built form impacts.

ii. As a result of the close proximity to the future GO Station, the requested parking ratio will adequately service the proposed development and will not result in overflow parking off site.

c. Is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands:

i. The proposed development is reflective of numerous policy objectives that support mixed-use high density uses within proximity

to existing and planned transit routes and will facilitate this form of development.

d. Is minor in nature:

i. Individually and collectively, the requested variances are minor in nature and there are no unacceptable adverse impacts. The proposed height is an appropriate size and scale for the area and the reduction in parking continues to provide sufficient parking.

13Similarly, planning staff for the town provided the COA with their planning analysis (Exhibit 1, Page 220-222) and concluded as follows:

Planning Staff have no objections to the approval of the minor variance for relief from the Zoning By-law with respect to building height and parking. Planning Staff have reviewed the application from a planning perspective in the context of the four tests set out in the Planning Act and submit these comments to the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration.

14The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Falletta and Mr. Bradt and is satisfied that the Minor Variances meet the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act and represent good planning, have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, NOP and TOP.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the appeal is allowed and the following variances to By-law 14-45 of the Town of Grimsby are authorized:

a. To permit a maximum building height of 54 metres (15 storeys) for the west building, whereas a height of 44 metres (12 storeys) is permitted as per s. 7.2.1, Table 11 and Schedule 77 of Zoning By-law 14-45, as amended.

b. To permit a maximum height of 87 metres (25 storeys) for the east building, whereas a height of 69 metres (19 storeys) is permitted as per s. 7.2.1, Table 11 and Schedule 77 of Zoning By-law 14-45, as amended.

c. To permit a minimum of 1.00 parking space per residential unit, exclusive of visitor parking spaces, whereas a minimum of 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit are required, as per s. 5.1, Table 3 of Zoning By-law 14-45, as amended.

d. To permit required parking spaces for commercial uses on another lot located at a maximum 500 metres from the subject lot (Mixed-Used High Density Zone – MHD), whereas required parking for commercial uses in the Downtown Zones may be provided on another lot provided such lot is located not more than 122 metres from the subject lot and the commercial use, as per

s. 5.8 of the Zoning By-law 14-45, as amended.

“Kurtis Smith”

KURTIS SMITH

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.