Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 02, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004679
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
Appellant:
24051124 Ontario Ltd.
Subject:
By-law No. 100/2022
Description:
To allow development of 14 sfd subdivision
Property Address:
3200 Lloyd Street
Municipality:
City of Thunder Bay
Reference Number:
Z-05-2021
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004679
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004679
OLT Case Name:
24051124 Ontario Ltd. v. Thunder Bay (City)
Heard:
July 18, 2024 in Writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
24051124 Ontario Ltd.
Robert Miaul
City of Thunder Bay
Patty Robinet
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON JULY 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Hearing to consider a settlement with regard to an appeal brought pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) by 24051124 Ontario Ltd (“Appellant”) against the City of Thunder Bay (“City”) to adopt Zoning By-law No. 100/2022 (“ZBA”) and the provisions of the ZBA that relate to the addition of a Holding Symbol to the property municipally known as 3200 Lloyd Street (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is located in the southwest part of the City, generally between Highway 11 (Arthur Street West) and the Kaministiquia River. The Subject Property is a rectangular parcel with 202 metres (“m”) of frontage, 192 m of depth and an area of 4.1 hectares. The Subject Property is located on the east side of this municipally owned, surveyed road allowance, which extends approximately 200 m immediately north of the end of the existing open and maintained Lloyd Street. The Subject Property is a vacant land, surrounded by low-density, single detached dwellings with municipal piped water service, and an intersecting railway line is located to the northeast.
3The purpose of the Appellant’s ZBA application was to facilitate a future application for a partially serviced residential Plan of Subdivision comprised of lots for single detached dwellings. The lands are landlocked as there is no built and maintained City road extending across the lot frontage. The Appellant sought the amendment ahead of a future application for a draft Plan of Subdivision.
4The proposal sought to have the rear lands rezoned from the “R5” Residential Future Development Zone to the same “R1” Residential One Zone, as applies to the bulk of the Subject Property, to reduce the minimum required lot frontage and lot area established under Zoning By-law No. 1/2022 with respect to the entirety of the Subject Property.
5The Appellant undertook the clearing of vegetation on the Subject Property in 2012 in order to prepare the site for development and commenced an application to extend the road and municipal water through a local improvement petition initiative. To the present day, the City generally rezoned all municipal water-serviced lands to require a 10,000 square metre minimum lot area unless a smaller size was supported by a Hydrogeological Study. The Lakehead Region Conservation Authority identified the subject property and other lands in the Neebing River watershed as either provincially significant or evaluated wetlands.
6The Appellant obtained City approval of the Hydrogeological Study, allowing the Subject Property to be developed with a smaller minimum lot size, frontage, and area. The Appellant further received Engineering Approval for road construction by way of consent and a development agreement and paid the required deposit for the preparation of the Development Agreement.
7The ZBA application was considered and approved by Council.
8On the advice of Planning Services, the entire Subject Property was placed into the H-Holding zone.
9The Tribunal was informed that the Holding Symbol would be removed once the developer has received a draft Plan of Subdivision Approval and has entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the City, which included the establishment of a no-build area near the railway corridor and amend the lot frontage and area requirements.
10The Appellant appealed the ZBA regarding what they believed to be an “overly restrictive H-Holding zone provision.” The Appellant took issue with the imposition of a Holding Symbol on the entirety of the Subject Property rather than just the Rear Portion, which was the only portion subject to rezoning in the initial application.
11The Parties advised that a settlement had been reached and jointly requested an Order from the Tribunal to repeal Zoning By-law No. 100/2022 in its entirety pursuant to s. 34(26)(c) of the Act.
ISSUES
12Under Rule 12.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the issues to be addressed by the Tribunal when considering a proposed settlement are whether all statutory requirements and the public interest are satisfied. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal will determine whether the ZBA should be approved, amended, or repealed and whether the proceedings should be continued or dismissed.
13When adjudicating a ZBA, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendment:
Is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”)).
Conforms with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (“Growth Plan”)); and
Represents good planning.
14With regard to ZBA appeals, the Tribunal must also determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with the applicable official plans.
15The Tribunal also must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and regard to the decision of the City Council and the information considered by it pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
16In support of the proposed settlement, the City filed an affidavit sworn by Decio Lopes, dated July 2, 2024, marked as Exhibit 1. Mr. Lopes is the Supervisor of Planning Services at the City. Based on his experience and expertise, the Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning.
17Mr. Lopes outlined that the ZBA is site-specific and would amend the City Zoning By-law Nos.100/2010, as amended and 1/2022, which, among other things, establishes a Holding Symbol.
18Mr. Lopes stated that the City Official Plan (“OP”) specifies that a Holding Symbol may be applied in a number of scenarios, including when a development agreement, servicing agreement, subdivision agreement, or other required agreements are necessary to guide the orderly development of the lands.
19Mr. Lopes confirmed that the Subject Property is designated as a Rural Settlement and is landlocked, therefore requiring a new road and extension of services. Lands within Rural Settlements can be developed, and new roads and services can be constructed with a Plan of Subdivision. For lands where a road allowance exists but the travelled road must be extended, the City OP requires a Plan of Subdivision process to be undertaken. This could mean any one or more of the following but is not limited to these things:
A similar notification process as would be required with a Plan of Subdivision, including circulation to relevant agencies to garner commentary and/or requirements for a new serviced road;
Notifying property owners with a mailed notice and posting of a sign on the road allowance;
Development agreement; and/or
Some other agreement between the parties to allow for the road and utilities extensions, etc.
As a Plan of Subdivision process is required, a Holding Symbol was applied, as it was permitted pursuant to the City OP.
20Mr. Lopes was of the opinion that the added benefit of applying a Holding Symbol is that it can provide greater transparency and notification to the public as to the intended future development of the lands. However, since a Plan of Subdivision process would be undertaken in the development of a new serviced road along Lloyd Street, notification to the public will be achieved as it will need to go to City Council at a future meeting, which will be decided in public. Mr. Lopes continued that because a Plan of Subdivision process will be put before City Council, the public will be informed of such applications. This future application and public notification provide the opportunity for transparency that was originally intended with the use of the Holding Symbol.
21Mr. Lopes stated he had reviewed the terms of settlement where the City would repeal Zoning By-law No.100/2022 and allow for the underlying zoning, being "RS1" - Rural Settlement Zone, to remain. This would have the effect of removing the holding provision and the lot size reduction.
22Mr. Lopes advised that the repeal of Zoning By-law No. 100/2022 is consistent with the PPS and the Growth Plan, conforms to the City OP, and represents good land use planning.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23Under Rule 12.1, if all statutory requirements and the public interest are satisfied, the Tribunal may issue an order approving a proposed settlement with any necessary amendments. In considering the statutory provisions and the public interest, the Tribunal must determine whether the outcome of the proposed settlement conforms with the provisions of the applicable legislation. This informs the Tribunal on whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed and whether, in the present case, the ZBA should be approved, amended, or repealed, in whole or in part, under s. 34(26) of the Act.
24The applicable statutory requirements to be addressed by the Tribunal in a ZBA appeal under s. 34(19) of the Act are found in s. 2, s. 2.1, s. 3(5), and s. 24(1) of the Act.
25The Tribunal accepts the uncontradicted planning opinion evidence of Mr. Lopes in its entirety. The Tribunal had regard for the decision and considered the information available to City Council pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act and finds that the proposed settlement meets all the relevant tests of s. 2 of the Act, the PPS, the Growth Plan, is in conformity with the City OP, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
26Based on the proposed settlement, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA should be repealed under 34(26)(c) of the Act.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay Zoning By-Law Number No. 100/2022, being a Zoning By-law to amend Zoning By-Law No. 100/2010 and Zoning By-Law No. 1/2022 is repealed.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. daniel best
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.