Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Todd James Barlow
Subject: By-law No. 23-022
Description: To permit the development of a three-storey adult lifestyle multiple dwelling
Reference Number: ZAC-23-022
Property Address: 2800 Library Lane and 2641 Regional Road 56
Municipality: Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000028
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000028
OLT Case Name: Todd James Barlow v Hamilton (City)
Heard: April 24, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Todd James Barlow (“Appellant”)
Self-represented*
City of Hamilton (“City”)
Peter Krysiak
Township of Glanbrook Non-Profit Housing Corporation (“Applicant”)
Peter Gross Shuang Ren
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE ON April 24, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal by Todd James Barlow pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, in respect of Council for the City of Hamilton’s approval of the Township of Glanbrook Non-Profit Housing Corporation’s Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), to permit the development of a three-storey adult lifestyle multiple dwelling on the property municipally known as 2800 Library Lane and 2641 Regional Road 56 (“Subject Property”).
2The City was represented by Mr. Krysiak at the hearing. He advised the Tribunal that the City did not intend on making submissions but would attend to assist the Tribunal. The Appellant was self-represented. He resides on a property immediately to the east of the Subject Property, with his backyard abutting it. Mr. Gross and Mr. Ren represented the Applicant.
DECISION
3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal dismisses the Appeal.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
4The Subject Property has a total area of 3.04 hectares. It contains two separate parcels of land, one of which is owned by the Applicant (“Part A”) and the other currently owned by the City (“Part B”). Part A is currently developed as 31 seniors’ affordable rental apartments (“Orchard Court”), while Part B remains vacant, open space. The Applicant provides the only purpose-built rental housing for seniors in Binbrook.
5The Subject Site is located northeast of the intersection of Binbrook Road and Regional Road 56. It is surrounded on all sides by the following existing development:
a. A commercial retail plaza to the north;
b. Two-storey single detached residential dwellings to the east, fronting Tanglewood Drive;
c. A mix of commercial uses and one-storey single detached residential dwellings to the west, fronting Regional Road 56, including the Hamilton Public Library – Binbrook Branch; and
d. One-and-a-half and two-storey single-detached residential dwellings to the south, fronting Binbrook Road.
THE ZBA APPLICATION
6The Applicant seeks to develop the vacant parcel on the Subject Property with a new three-storey seniors affordable rental apartment building with 105 independent living units. The proposed development will have a gross floor area of 9366 square meters and a proposed maximum height of 16.18 meters. Out of the 105 units, 52 units are proposed at affordable rental levels, being 80 percent of the median market rent for the City.
7To avoid merger on title of the two parcels, the City intends to transfer its ownership of Part B to a separate, but wholly owned, non-profit corporation whose purpose is to develop and operate housing on the Subject Property.
8The proposed development requires a ZBA in order to address the following:
a. A change of land use and outdated agricultural zoning classification for Part B of the Subject Property;
b. A reduced side yard between the proposed Part A and Part B to accommodate siting of the buildings on what was historically two properties that will become one as a result of the consent application and will operate functionally as one;
c. A reduced rear yard setback to accommodate the location of the waste storage building adjacent to the waste collection location of the commercial retail plaza north of the Subject Property;
d. Reducing the required minimum floor area per dwelling unit to align with current construction standards in order to support unit affordability;
e. A requested increase in the maximum permitted height to accommodate a three-storey building with a pitched roof;
f. Increasing the permitted maximum height to accommodate a three-storey building with a pitched roof;
g. Increasing the permitted maximum lot area to accommodate a development of this scale;
h. Reduce the required minimum lot frontage along Library Lane to accommodate existing site conditions;
i. A reduction in the required minimum parking ratio to align with forecasted demand from the planned seniors’ population for the proposed development, consistent with parking demand from residents of the existing Orchard Court building;
j. Aligning the required parking space and accessible parking space dimensions for the Subject Property with the intent of the Council of the City of Hamilton in By-Law No. 6593; and
k. Permit commercial and community spaces ancillary to the adult lifestyle multiple dwelling use (seniors affordable rental apartments), which exists and is proposed for the Subject Property.
9The Council for the City approved the requested ZBA on November 22, 2023, rezoning the Subject Property with site-specific zoning (“RM4-322”), which permitted the following:
a. For Part A:
1.50.a.1. A front lot line with a length of 20.31 metres of frontage along Library Lane.
1.50.a.2. A maximum height of 10.7 metres
b. For Part B:
1.50.b.1. A front lot line with a length of 20.13 metres of frontage along Library Lane
1.50.b.2. An accessory building with an area of up to 230 square metres, to be located no less than 2.5 meters from the northerly lot line
1.50.b.3. A maximum height of 16.5 metres
1.50.b.4. A reduced minimum planting strip width of 2.5 metres along a 25 metres portion of the eastern property line, beginning 64.88 metres south of the north property line and extending to 89.88 metres south of the north property line
1.50.b.5. Permitted accessory uses: convenience retail store; restaurant standard; and community centre
1.50.b.6 A minimum floor area per dwelling unit: 45 square metres for a one-bedroom unit, and 65 square metres for a two-bedroom unit
c. For Part A and Part B:
1.50.c.1. A minimum floor area per dwelling unit: 45 square metres for a one-bedroom unit, and 65 square metres for a two-bedroom unit
1.50.c.2. Reduced minimum parking space dimensions of 2.8 metres width and 5.8 metres length, and minimum accessible parking space dimensions of 4.4 metres width and 5.8 metres length for 90-degree perpendicular parking spaces
1.50.c.3. A parking space ratio of 0.84 parking spaces per unit
1.50.c.4 The parking provisions (including the parking space ratio) for the Subject Property shall apply collectively
1.50.c.5 A minimum lot frontage of 20.13 metres
1.50.c.6 A maximum lot area of 3.04 hectares
1.50.c.7. A reduced minimum side and rear yard of 7 metres where the Subject Property adjoins lands zoned Residential R4
1.50.c.8. A reduced 3 metre interior side yard where Part A and Part B of the Subject Property adjoin, after the required lot addition is approved
1.50.c.9. A minimum setback of 9 metres from any other zone, apart from those identified in 1.50.c.7 and 1.50.c.8.
THE LEGAL TEST FOR A ZBA
10This proposed ZBA, in addition to being consistent with the PPS, must conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (“Growth Plan”), to the Greenbelt Plan (2017), the applicable Official Plans, as well as meet the intent and purpose of the Town’s ZBA and represent good land use planning.
11In addition, in carrying out its responsibilities under the Planning Act, the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of same.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
12The Tribunal marked the following documents as Exhibits:
a. Exhibit 1: Applicant’s Book of Documents;
b. Exhibit 2: Applicant’s Book of Visual Evidence;
c. Exhibit 3: Witness Statement of Lisa Burrows;
d. Exhibit 4: Witness Statement of Andrew Vrana; and
e. Exhibit 5: Appellant’s Visual Evidence.
13The Tribunal heard testimony from two witnesses of the Applicant: Ms. Burrows, the executive director of the Applicant, as a lay witness, and Mr. Vrana, a land planner retained by the Applicant who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. The Appellant did not call any witnesses but provided his submissions to the Tribunal.
Appellant’s Submissions
14The Appellant submitted that it was not reasonable for an adjacent landowner to expect a rezoning of land from agricultural use to multiple-storey residential use. The Appellant then listed the following concerns with the zoning change and proposed development:
a. Building height, density, and location translating to privacy issues;
b. Shadowing and Parking Lot Night Lighting;
c. Negative impact of the development on property values;
d. Grading and Drainage;
e. Inadequate facility Parking – 105 units and 78 parking spaces;
f. Traffic flow/congestion – study requested but not provided for review;
g. The proposed development has no access to public transit;
h. Proposed residents will not have reasonable access to services typically required by them (medical doctors, clinics, transportation);
i. Disruption of natural habitat – nesting grounds;
j. Waste storage, waste collection and snow removal, translating into noise concerns; and
k. Inadequate site servicing – current sewer contracts Techni-core/McNally are not connected or complete.
15The Appellant also referred to “recent precedent decisions” for other applications in Hamilton, such as Stoney Creek Development 6-12 Lake Avenue Property and the former Glen Echo School site. He submits that decision-making from the City and Planning Department ought to be “consistent, repeatable, and reasonable”, and that the decision made for this Subject Property is incompatible with the decisions he refers to as “recent precedent decisions”.
Applicant’s Evidence
16Ms. Burrows provided helpful context as to the Applicant’s current and proposed operations. She explained that since the Applicant was incorporated and Orchard Court was built in the early 1980s, they have had a waitlist of approximately three to five years for seniors seeking an available unit. She outlined that the mission of the Applicant is to provide secure and affordable housing that meets the needs of seniors.
17Mr. Vrana provided his uncontroverted opinion evidence as to the land use planning merits of the ZBA. He explained that this proposal was an intensification within a settlement area, increasing the density of an under-utilized space on a parcel with municipal services, and contributed many affordable units on a site near amenities accessible by foot.
18He further opined that the current agricultural zoning for Part B of the Subject Property is a legacy of the past and no longer appropriate now that all surrounding lands have been developed. An agricultural use would likely not be feasible on this site given its small area and proximity to sensitive residential uses.
19Finally, in both his witness statement and testimony, Mr. Vrana provided extensive submissions addressing the concerns raised by the Appellant. In summary, he opined that the concerns and issues raised by the Appellant were either not relevant to the evaluation of a ZBA application or a change of land use, stem from a misunderstanding of the planning process, or had been adequately addressed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20The Appellant’s contention that this site-specific proposal is incompatible with other land planning applications has no legal basis. Other site-specific applications are not relevant in determining whether a particular application meets the legislative test.
21None of the Appellant’s submissions support his request that the appeal be granted, and the Applicant’s ZBA refused. The Appellant did not provide the Tribunal with land use planning evidence. The Applicant also brought to the Tribunal’s attention that the Appellant had not even reviewed the Applicant’s extensive materials until the evening before the hearing.
22The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Vrana and finds that the requested ZBA has due regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan, conforms with the Town’s OP and Binbrook Village Secondary Plan, and represents good planning in the public interest.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-Law 23-022 of the City of Hamilton is dismissed.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
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.