Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 22, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001095
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sobeys Capital Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit stacked townhouse development containing six blocks and a total of 114 dwelling units
Reference Number: D 09-03-23
Property Address: 135 Coronation Drive
Municipality/UT: Port Colborne/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001095
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001095
OLT Case Name: Sobeys Capital Inc. v. Port Colborne (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sobeys Capital Inc
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit stacked townhouse development containing six blocks and a total of 114 dwelling units
Reference Number: D14-04-23
Property Address: 135 Coronation Drive
Municipality/UT: Port Colborne/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001096
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001095
Heard: August 9, 2024 in Writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sobeys Capital Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant")
J.C.M. Fraser A. Skinner in absentia
City of Port Colborne ("City")
S. Premi T. Richardson in absentia
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON AUGUST 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Sobeys Capital Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) appealed the failure of the Council of the City of Port Colborne (“City”) to adopt an amendment to the City Official Plan (“OPA”), and to approve an amendment to the City Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), to permit a stacked townhouse development containing six (6) blocks and a total of 114 dwelling units (“Proposed Development”) on lands municipally known as 135 Coronation Drive, in the City of Port Colborne, in the Region of Niagara (“Subject Property”).
2Case Management Conferences (“CMCs”) were held on March 5, 2024, and May 8, 2024, where an Affidavit of Service was confirmed and a Hearing date set. There were no requests for status. The Tribunal was informed that the Parties would continue deliberations toward resolving the identified issues.
3On June 28, 2024, the Tribunal received a request to have the scheduled five-day hearing adjourned and converted to a one-day, written Settlement Hearing on the consent of both Parties. The Tribunal granted this request on July 12, 2024, and scheduled a written hearing for August 9, 2024.
4On July 31, 2024, the Tribunal received a sworn City Council resolution in support of the Settlement along with copies of the draft planning instruments to be considered for approval by the Tribunal.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
5The settlement agreement before the Tribunal facilitates the Proposed Development through the OPA included as Attachment 1 and the ZBA included as Attachment 2.
6The primary revisions to the proposed OPA clarified that the Special Policy Area will be designated Urban Residential Special, which is a change from Commercial Plaza; modified the reference to Policy 3.2.1 (c) by describing the Proposed Development as stacked townhouse dwellings ranging in density from 70 to 100 units per hectare; and required that the Subject Property be subject to Site Plan Control. The proposed OPA also requires that entrances be oriented toward the street, and that the Subject Property have landscape treatment along the property lines.
7Regarding the ZBA, it is proposed that the zoning for the Subject Lands change from Commercial Plaza to Fourth Density Residential (R4-72). The Special Provision (Section 37) was reformatted and removed the following uses from the list of permitted uses: apartment buildings, public apartment buildings, and boarding or lodging house. A provision to limit the number of dwellings units to 114 was also added. The Holding Provision for Traffic Impact Study was removed following discussions with City staff and the Appellant’s traffic consultant.
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
8With respect to the specific Legislative tests to be met, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the foregoing is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area (“Growth Plan”) and the Niagara Region Official Plan (“ROP”). The ZBA must also conform with the City of Port Colborne Official Plan (“COP”) and represent good planning.
9The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as to the decision of the City and the information considered by it, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10The following documents were received by the Tribunal prior to the Hearing and marked as exhibits:
a. Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Aaron Butler
b. Exhibit 2: Draft Official Plan Amendment
c. Exhibit 3: Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
d. Exhibit 4: Resolution of Consent to the OPA and ZBA by City Council
11Mr. Butler is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Registered Professional Planner with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He has many years of land use planning experience with various Ontario municipalities and has been previously qualified by the Tribunal. Mr. Butler’s Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form were both sworn and signed on July 31, 2024. The Tribunal qualified him to provide written opinion evidence on land use planning given his related experience, planning credentials and on consent of the Parties.
12The Tribunal read, and accepts, the uncontested written Affidavit planning evidence from Mr. Butler in support of the Settlement. He provided a complete overview of the redevelopment proposal for the Subject Property, the municipal process, and a planning analysis in support of the relief sought through the OPA and ZBA with respect to the legislative tests outlined above in paragraphs [8] and [9].
13Mr. Butler opines that the Applications have regard for matters of Provincial interest as required under Section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent and in conformity with the PPS, the Growth Plan and conform with the ROP. He proffers that the ZBA also conforms with the COP.
14Regarding matters of Provincial interest, Mr. Butler opined that the Proposed Development:
provides a full range of housing and is in an appropriate location for growth and development;
contributes 114 new dwelling units to the proposed multi-unit residential development where “single detached dwellings are the predominant housing typology”; and
increases density through the stacked townhouse development design and its connection to public sidewalks.
15Regarding the PPS, Mr. Butler opines that the Proposed Development supports its implementation as it is located in a settlement area, makes uses of existing infrastructure and supports active transportation while also being close to public transit. The Proposed Development also adds new housing which provides “diversification of housing options” available in the City.
16Mr. Butler proffered that the Proposed Development supports the growth and development policies of the Growth Plan as it represents a “complete community” that supports healthy living and is in a delineated built-up area as per Schedule 2 of the Growth Plan.
17The ROP promotes the intensification and higher densities in transit-supportive areas and Mr. Butler proffers that the location of the Proposed Development supports the region in achieving these goals. In particular, he opines that the development provides a higher-density option in an existing urban area along with employment options, retail options, services and recreation options nearby. The Proposed Development integrates with existing services and infrastructure.
18Mr. Butler indicated that the Subject Property is within the City’s Urban Area Boundary, and, if the OPA is approved, that the proposed residential development will conform with the COP and in particular Policy 1.2 which supports the compact development and the creation of walkable neighbourhoods. He also opined that the Proposed Development conforms as it represents infill which will use existing water and sanitary services. It also conforms with Policy 3.2.1 c) as the 114 dwelling units represents a density of 87.3 units per hectare where the policy allows 70 to 100 units per hectare.
19Mr. Butler outlined that the permitted uses proposed in the ZBA result in the Subject Property having a combination of the existing R4 Zone requirements for apartment buildings and site-specific provisions. He proffers that the changes are appropriate given the stacked building design proposed. The ZBA reflects decreases in minimum lot area per unit and minimum setbacks. It also decreases the typically permitted maximum height of 20 metres to a maximum height of 11 metres, which is standard for ground-oriented housing forms in the City. The ZBA controls the maximum density by setting a new maximum unit requirement of 114 units.
20Mr. Butler opined that the Proposed Development represents “good land use planning” and also represents a “planned function of residential intensification”.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
21The Tribunal, having considered the uncontroverted testimony and affidavit evidence of Mr. Butler, accepts the opinions proffered by Mr. Butler.
22The Settlement Proposal has regard for those matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and will support the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, provide a range of housing, be sustainable, and is well designed.
23The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal implements key policies and goals of the PPS and the Growth Plan which emphasize the efficient and optimized use of the existing land base and the existing and planned infrastructure, and in particular the investment in transit infrastructure.
24The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal will be an efficient and optimized use of the Subject Property with an urban form that will efficiently utilize existing infrastructure and community facilities. The convenient access to a range of transit options allows for maximum utilization of transit, minimizing vehicle trips while encouraging alternative forms of active transportation and promoting energy efficiency.
25The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA are required to facilitate the development of the Subject Property in accordance with the Settlement Plans, represent good planning and are in the public interest.
ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:
The appeals of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment are allowed.
The Official Plan for the City of Port Colborne Planning Area is amended in accordance with the Official Plan Amendment attached hereto as Attachment 1.
The City of Port Colborne Zoning By-law 6575/30/18 is amended in accordance with the Zoning By-law Amendment attached hereto as Attachment 2.
The municipal clerk is authorized to format, as may be necessary, and to assign numbers to the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment for record-keeping purposes.
The Tribunal may be spoken to if the Parties have any difficulty in implementing this Order.
“Gregory J. Ingram”
GREGORY J. INGRAM
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.