du territoire
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
ISSUE DATE:
July 24, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004698
OLT-24-000073
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
McCormick Village Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 74
Description:
To permit OPA and ZBA to redevelop an existing cookie factory with mixed-use housing
Property Address:
1156 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT:
City of London
Reference Number:
C.P-1512 (bv)-261
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004698
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004698
OLT Case Name:
McCormick Village Inc. v. London (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
McCormick Village Inc.
Subject:
By-law No. Z.-1-223068
Description:
To permit OPA and ZBA to redevelop an existing cookie factory with mixed-use housing
Property Address:
1156 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT:
City of London
Reference Number:
Z-1-223068
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004699
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004698
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
McCormick Villages Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit proposed draft plan of subdivision
Reference Number:
39T-21508/OZ-9545
Property Address:
1156 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000073
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000073
OLT Case Name:
McCormick Village Inc. v. London (City)
Heard:
June 19, 2024 by Video Hearing and
July 18, 2024 by Telephone Conference Call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
McCormick Village Inc. (“Appellant”)
P. Lombardi
City of London (“City”)
A. Hovius C. McCreery
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S.L. DIONNE ON JUNE 19, 2024 AND JULY 18, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1McCormick Village Inc. (“Appellant”) filed appeals against the City of London (“City”) in respect of the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 74 (“OPA 74”) and the passing of amending Zoning By-law No. Z-1-223068 (“ZBLA”), both pertaining to property municipally known as 1156 Dundas Street in the City of London (“Subject Lands”).
2The Tribunal conducted a Settlement Hearing at the request of the Parties on June 19, 2024, and provided an oral decision. Further, a Telephone Conference Call was held by the Tribunal on July 18, 2024 for the purposes of follow-up on the status of on-going settlement discussions and the timing for finalization of planning instruments.
3Upon the evidence provided and the findings made, the Tribunal now issues this Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order amending the City of London Zoning By-law, as amended, in principle, in the form requested pending receipt of the final form of mapping Schedule thereto. As a result of the withdrawal of the only appeal relating to OPA 74, the Tribunal also provides notice pursuant to s. 17(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. P.13, (“Act”) that OPA 74 comes into effect, as part of the City of London’s Official Plan, as of the effective date of withdrawal, on June 19, 2024.
4The Appellant’s appeal of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Act remains live (OLT-24-000073). At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal has set a one-day Settlement Hearing, commencing on Wednesday, September 4, 2024, at 10 a.m.
BACKGROUND AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
5The Subject Lands are commonly referred to as the former McCormick Cookie Factory lands, are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and are bounded by McCormick Boulevard on the west, Dundas Street on the south, Ashland Avenue on the east, and existing residential and commercial uses to the north. The former McCormick Cookie Factory building fronts onto Dundas Street.
6The Subject Lands have an area of approximately 5 hectares (“ha”). This former industrial brownfield site has undergone site remediation and is vacant, with the heritage building remaining.
7The Appellant seeks approvals to permit a mix of residential and commercial land uses in the re-development of the Subject Lands, to be facilitated by way of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”).
8On May 4, 2023, the Tribunal held a first CMC regarding appeals pursuant to s. 17(24) and s. 34(19) of the Act, pertaining to the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and ZBLA (the “Appeals”). On February 9, 2024, the Tribunal held a second CMC, at which time, upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Appellant’s appeal of the City’s non-decision on an application for Draft Plan of Subdivision for the Subject Lands (the “DPS Appeal”) with the other Appeals. Additionally, a four-day Hearing on all of these matters was scheduled to commence on June 18, 2024.
9On June 5, 2024, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a Settlement and requested a one-day Settlement Hearing be held on June 19, 2024.
10At the time of the Settlement Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that as part of the Settlement, the Appellant would withdraw its appeal of the OPA, and the Parties requested that the Tribunal hear evidence in support of the approval of a modified ZBLA and a concept plan for approval in principle of the proposed DPS. It was acknowledged that due to timing, the proposed DPS was only a concept, that further revisions would be required, and that Conditions of Draft Plan Approval (“DPA Conditions”) in relation to the DPS were yet to be prepared.
11After discussing preliminary matters with Counsel for the Parties, including the Tribunal’s reservations that it would be premature to make a decision in respect of the proposed DPS based on the form of the plan before it and without DPA Conditions, it was agreed that the Tribunal would proceed to hear evidence with respect to the Settlement on the proposed development and the ZBLA planning instrument and that a new hearing date for the Settlement of the DPS Appeal be scheduled for when the DPS and DPA Conditions are in a form appropriate for consideration of approval by the Tribunal.
12In support of the proposed Settlement of the Appeals, the Parties filed an Affidavit sworn by Bruce Page, Manager of Subdivision Planning for the City of London, dated June 18, 2024. Having reviewed his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Page as an expert able to provide land use planning opinion evidence.
13Mr. Page’s sworn Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1. The Tribunal also received a Draft Order, which included the proposed ZBLA, as well as OPA 74 as originally adopted by City Council, which would, upon the withdrawal of the Appeal of OPA 74, come into force and effect by operation of s. 17(30) of the Act.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK / ISSUES
14In considering the proposed ZBLA and OPA 74 in light of the withdrawal of the appeal under s. 17(24), the Tribunal must have regard to those matters of Provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and must be satisfied, pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act that the proposed ZBLA to permit the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”).
15The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the proposed ZBLA conforms and does not conflict with the City of London Official Plan, as amended, including with the policies specifically relating to the re-development and intensification set out in the McCormick Secondary Plan and OPA 74.
16In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, and having regard to any decision that was made by City Council that relates to the same planning matter pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must determine if the proposed planning instruments and resulting development represent good planning, are in the public interest and should be approved.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
17In the Settlement Hearing, Mr. Page provided an overview of the site and surrounding land uses, the history of the planning undertaken by the City, including the McCormick Secondary Plan and the City’s vision for the redevelopment of the Subject Lands, the evolution of the McCormick Villages Inc.’s development proposal, and the details of the modifications to the Council approved ZBLA, which have been agreed to between the Parties.
18In terms of the Settlement, Mr. Page advised the Tribunal that the Appellant was withdrawing its appeal of the OPA and that the ZBLA is proposed to be modified to include an increase in height to permit six storeys and that he is satisfied that the increase in height is justified and appropriate.
19Mr. Page opined that the ZBLA, along with the proposed development concept, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Official Plan and Secondary Plan, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
20Mr. Page opined that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS in that it will provide for a range of housing types and densities, including seniors’ apartments and a long-term care home, to meet long-term housing needs for current and future residents. Further, the proposed medium-density block will be located within the built-up area where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available to support the needs of future residents within the development. He opined that the height increase of 21 metres (“m”) on Block 3 of the concept plan is appropriate and is contemplated in this location, as it will allow for positive integration of the surrounding and future community and will contribute densities that align with the focus for residential intensification in proximity to the Dundas Street transit corridor.
21It was Mr. Page’s evidence that the McCormick Secondary Plan, adopted by City Council on December 8, 2015, is intended to guide the evolution of the former McCormick Cookie Factory and adjacent lands into a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood. The concept plan and the ZBLA align with the land use designations and policies which will facilitate the division of the Subject Lands into several blocks, enabling the retention of the existing McCormick Cookie Factory building to be re-purposed into a mixed-use residential/commercial building and additional blocks for a range of housing forms including single-detached dwellings, a variety of townhouses, mid-rise apartment buildings, and continuum-of-care facilities. The Secondary Plan contemplates building heights of up to 15 m (four storeys) with provision of up to 21 m (six storeys) subject to certain facilities, services, and other matters as detailed therein. He also pointed out that City Council has approved densities of up to 150 units per ha on the Subject Lands. Mr. Page opined that the DPS concept aligns with the policies, and the ZBLA conforms with the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.
22Mr. Page opined that the ZBLA would facilitate a desirable mix of residential and commercial land uses and built forms that are considered, in his opinion, to be appropriate for the future development of the Subject Lands. It was Mr. Page’s evidence that the ZBLA Schedule reflects the zone boundary limits to align with the proposed block boundaries for the DPS, as shown on the concept plan. Mr. Page advised the Tribunal that the concept plan contemplates the restoration and adaptive re-use of the McCormick Cookie Factory heritage building into a mid-rise mixed-use building; the division of 1.36 ha of the Subject Lands by way of a recent consent to sever approval granted by the City to Extendicare for a long-term care facility; a medium density seniors apartments block fronting McCormick Boulevard; a park block; the proposed Gleeson Street, widening of Dundas Street and Ashland Avenue to facilitate its re-alignment; and a network of pathways, to be publicly accessible, connecting pedestrians from the various blocks to the park block and the surrounding road network, including to rapid transit along Dundas Street. Mr. Page opined that the ZBLA represents good planning and provides for the future development of the Subject Lands in a manner that is appropriate and desirable.
23Mr. Page provided oral evidence in respect of matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 a), h), j), p), and q) of the Act. He opined that the ZBLA would provide for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities by way of the orientation of the proposed buildings, the provision of pathway corridors, the creation of safe and attractive areas, and enhanced opportunities for views of the public and private spaces. He opined that the ZBLA would provide for a range of housing opportunities, including seniors housing, continuing care, and a mix of uses, and that the increase in density would assist in making housing affordable, with opportunities for condo or rental housing. He opined that the ZBLA would promote development that is designed to be sustainable, supportive of the rapid transit being constructed along Dundas Street, and oriented towards pedestrians by way of the efforts being made to ensure the planning of connectivity of development blocks with the park and surrounding road network, and the provision for publicly accessible pathways throughout the Subject Lands.
24With respect to the DPS, Mr. Page stated that City Staff and the Appellant are continuing to work together on revisions intended to conform with the Secondary Plan, and would be facilitated by way of the ZBLA.
FINDINGS
25The Tribunal accepts Mr. Page’s uncontested planning evidence and is satisfied that the Settlement proposal as presented is appropriate and desirable.
26The Tribunal confirms in this decision that the Appellant has withdrawn its appeal OPA 74 and that in accordance with s. 17(30) of the Act, the Tribunal gives notice that City Council’s decision adopting OPA 74 is final, and the time for filing of appeals has expired, and as such OPA 74 shall come into full force and effect. Further, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of the Order in this respect, the OPA shall be effective as of June 19, 2024, which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the withdrawal of the s. 17(24) appeal.
27The Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBLA is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the City's Official Plan and Secondary Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the City’s applicable policies and matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, as well as the decisions made by City Council in relation to the matters before it. The Tribunal finds that the ZBLA will facilitate the re-development of the Subject Lands for an appropriate mix of land uses appropriate for its context and will contribute to housing supply through additional variety in housing types within the City, including those for seniors and continuing care, and that it constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.
28The Tribunal finds that the appeal against ZBLA is allowed in part and finds that the modifications to the ZBLA are appropriate and desirable, and finds that the ZBLA, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Decision, should be approved, subject to a minor revision to the mapping Schedule thereto.
29The Tribunal scheduled a one-day Settlement Hearing in respect of the appeal of the DPS (OLT-24-000073) to commence on Wednesday, September 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing in accordance with the details as follows:
30Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access Code: 687-587-165
31Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting, or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
32Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application, or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1 (888) 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.
33Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
34The Tribunal directs that the revised DPS and proposed Conditions of DPA, along with an Affidavit of the Planner in support thereof, are to be submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the Hearing and by no later than August 27, 2024.
35Having heard evidence with respect to these appeals, the Member will remain seized of the DPS Appeal.
INTERIM ORDER
Appeal – Zoning By-law Amendment – s. 34(19)
36THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against Zoning By-law No. Z-1-223068 of the City of London is allowed in part, on an interim basis, and Zoning By-law No. Z-1-223068 is amended, in principle, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order and Decision contingent upon receipt and approval by the Tribunal of the final form of the mapping Schedule to be attached thereto submitted and confirmed to be satisfactory to the City.
Appeal – Official Plan Amendment – s. 17(24)
37THE TRIBUNAL, having received confirmation from the Appellant that the appeal under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, appealing the adoption by the Council of the City of London of Official Plan Amendment No. 74 is withdrawn in its entirety, and the time for filing of any other appeals having expired, HEREBY PROVIDES NOTICE of the withdrawal of the Appeal to the Clerk of the City of London pursuant to s. 17(30) of the Planning Act;
38THE TRIBUNAL, in providing such notice, hereby confirms that by operation of s. 17(30) of the Planning Act:
a) The decision of the City of London Council to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 74 to the City of London Official Plan is final; and,
b) Official Plan Amendment No. 74, as adopted by the City without modification and amending the Official Plan of the City of London, is hereby now in full force and effect. Pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of the Order, it shall be, and was, effective as of Wednesday, June 19, 2024, which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the request.
39No further notice will be given.
40The Member is seized of these matters.
“S.L. Dionne”
S.L. DIONNE
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