Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000252
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Medal Homes Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of application
Description: To permit development of 45 three-storey freehold residential units on 6 blocks
Reference Number: OPA-2023-04
Property Address: 65 St. John’s Sideroad
Municipality/UT: Aurora
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000252
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000252
OLT Case Name: Medal Homes Inc. v. Aurora (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Medal Homes Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To permit development of 45 three-storey freehold residential units on 6 blocks
Reference Number: ZBA-2023-04
Property Address: 65 St. John’s Sideroad
Municipality/UT: Aurora
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000253
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000252
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Medal Homes Inc.
Subject: Site Plan – refusal
Description: To permit development of 45 three-storey freehold residential units on 6 blocks
Reference Number: SP-2023-13
Property Address: 65 St. John’s Sideroad
Municipality/UT: Aurora
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000254
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000252
Heard: August 20, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Medal Homes Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)
Paul DeMelo
Town of Aurora (“Town”)
Patricia De Sario
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON August 20, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was a settlement hearing to consider a settlement proposal (“Settlement”) of the Appellant’s appeals of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) of Zoning By-law No. 6000-17 (“ZBL”) and a Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) (collectively, the “Applications”).
2The purpose of the Applications was to facilitate the development of forty-five three-storey townhouses on lands municipally known as 65 St. John’s Sideroad (“Subject Property”) in the Town of Aurora (“Town”).
3The Appellant and the Town have settled the matter through this Settlement. Counsel informed the Tribunal that the OPA appeal was withdrawn since the OPA was no longer necessary due to the Town’s new in-force Official Plan permitting buildings of three storeys. Following the Settlement, a draft ZBA and draft Site Plan were provided, which were, if the Tribunal thought fit, to be approved in principle subject to conditions to be fulfilled before the Final Order may be issued.
4Nick Pileggi, a Registered Professional Planner, swore an affidavit on August 15, 2024, on behalf of the Appellant in support of the Settlement. He was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1.
5The Participants’ [Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (“LSRCA”), McKenzie Marsh Ratepayers Association (MMRA) and Melanie Duckett-Wilson] concerns on the proposed development of the Subject Property were addressed by Mr. Pileggi through his affidavit and testimony. Their concerns about the proposed development generally relate to the intensity, scale, height, compatibility, traffic, environmental, natural heritage, hazard, and species at risk. These were appropriately responded to by Mr. Pileggi at the hearing.
6LSRCA has, according to Mr. Pileggi, reviewed the natural heritage evaluation study (NHE), the cut and fill plan and jointly staked the marsh wetland development limit buffer of a minimum of 30 metres (“m”). The LSRCA and the Town have indicated satisfaction with same. There is no development in the wetlands and no species-at-risk concerns. The flood hazard concern at the driveway is addressed by emergency access through lands owned by the Town, which is to be conveyed to the Appellant (in exchange for the Appellant giving up the right of access to Pittypat Court). The Appellant will correspondingly convey land to the Town for the wetland buffers. The Site Plan and conditions will address these and related concerns, plus trees and landscaping matters.
7Traffic Impact Assessment for the applications indicated that there are no traffic-related issues. A Construction Impact Mitigation study laid out a plan for minimization of environmental impacts from construction where construction activities will be conducted in compliance with the Town’s Noise By-law and the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction.
8The Tribunal, having considered the uncontested sworn testimony of Mr. Pileggi, the Settlement, and having reviewed the documents filed, allows the appeal in part for the reasons set out below.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
9Mr. Pileggi described the background to the ZBA, SPA, and the Settlement to the Tribunal. He reviewed the legislative and policy framework in support of the proposed applications and Settlement.
10The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”), the York Region Official Plan (“ROP”) and the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”). He opined that the Settlement Proposal, the ZBA and SPA represent good land use planning and recommended approval of the ZBA and SPA in principle with the Final Order being withheld pending finalization of the final draft ZBL and the Site Plan with appropriate site plan conditions.
AREA CONTEXT
11The Subject Property is located on the south side of St. John’s Sideroad, east of Yonge Street. The total area is 1.29 hectares (3.21 acres), with approximately 60.88 m of frontage on St. John’s Sideroad – the south portion of the Subject Property fronts onto Pittypat Court. The site is currently vacant, with some vegetation and a driveway to St. John’s Sideroad.
12The Viva Rapid Transit Service blue line on Yonge Street is about 250 m from the driveway of the Subject Property. The York Region Transit service also operates along Yonge Street.
13The following uses surround the Subject Property:
North – across St. John’s Sideroad are lands zoned Environmental Protection with the Nokiidaa Trail traversing the McKenzie Wetland, a large single detached dwelling, and an assisted seniors living complex. A townhouse development is proposed at 46 St. John’s Sideroad.
South – there is a low-rise residential subdivision.
East – the Atkinson Park, a stormwater pond, the McKenzie Marsh, and further east are single detached dwellings.
West – a low-rise residential subdivision fronting on Old Yonge Street.
14The original proposal was to redevelop the Subject Property with a townhouse development comprising 45 residential units on seven blocks with access via a private driveway/private road.
15As part of settlement discussions with the Town, a revised proposal was submitted with a Site Plan in response to comments made by staff and residents.
THE REVISED PROPOSAL
16The revised Settlement includes Site Plan drawings produced by TACT Architecture Inc. following discussions between the Appellant and the Town.
17The revised Settlement seeks to redevelop the Subject Property by constructing 30 townhouse dwelling units with a maximum height of 12 m, including a minimum of two parking spaces per unit, provision for visitor parking, and other specifications.
18In exchange for relinquishing the right to access Pittypat Court for the proposed emergency access, the Town will convey the neighbouring lands at 55 St. John’s Sideroad for emergency access.
19Lands used for the buffer purposes will be conveyed by the Appellant to the Town. The minimum 30 m buffer requirement to the adjacent McKenzie Marsh wetland (a Provincially Significant Wetland – PSW) is provided. The wetland limit was staked with staff from the LSRCA. The staking and buffer have been reviewed and accepted by an Environmental peer review consultant for the Town.
20The proposed development proposes a grading plan for the cut and fill process, which indicates the amount of cut and fill can be balanced on the site. The cut and fill and grading plans have been reviewed by LSRCA staff, and they are satisfied.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS
21The Tribunal agrees with the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Pileggi that the Settlement:
PPS and Growth Plan
a) Supports the PPS policy direction in optimizing the use of the resources, the land, and the existing and planned infrastructure. The proposed 30 three-storey townhouse dwelling units’ development is suitable and appropriate for the Subject Property and its surrounding residential uses.
b) Optimizes the use of underutilized land with a compact urban form that efficiently utilizes community facilities and the existing infrastructure. The proximate access to an existing public trail system, sidewalks and easily accessible public transit options allows for optimal utilization of transit while promoting alternative forms of active transportation.
c) Provides a development with additional dwellings, with an appropriate market-based range and mix of housing units, contributing to a more ‘complete community.’
d) Contributes to this strategic growth area’s minimum target population growth needs.
e) The proposed development, the draft ZBA and the draft Site Plan are consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan.
f) Conforms with the ROP and OP by:
ROP
Focusing on developing the Subject Property, which is within the Urban Area on Map 1 Regional Structure of the ROP where ROP policies require intensification and accommodating of a significant portion of the planned growth in the Region.
Being a well-designed, high-quality residential development on this underutilized Subject Property, offering townhouse residential unit types, open space and amenities designed to provide for long-term growth and development on the planned urban structure through an integrated growth management process providing for a healthy, sustainable, and complete community services to 2051 and beyond (ROP s. 1.3).
Advancing the vision for the Strategic Growth Area to support a complete community which has most amenities nearby that are accessible and walkable with greenspace, trails, and pedestrian and transit networks (ROP s. 2.3).
OP
Proposing a development on the Subject Property, which is designated Residential Neighbourhood and Natural Heritage System in the 2024 Aurora Official Plan (OP) – Town Structure and Stable Neighbourhoods and Environmental Protection on Schedule ‘B’ – Land Use Plan, that conforms to the promotion of responsible growth management, providing a range and mix of housing, and building a greener community while protecting the stable neighbourhoods (OP s. 2.1).
Providing a development designed to conform to the development criteria within the Urban Boundary and within the built-up area intensification policies in the OP.
Proposing a housing form that is compatible with the existing development in the area. The proposed low-rise townhouse form is an acceptable built form compatible with the low-rise, detached dwellings and a townhouse development situated to the southwest of the Subject Property, on the west side of Old Yonge Street.
Providing a small-scale intensification and minor infill through this townhouse development that is a new residential development at the periphery of Stable Neighbourhoods, which is accommodated in the OP (OP s. 4.2 f) ii)).
Designing the three-storey townhouses to provide for appropriate transition to adjacent lands through the sloped roof, articulation in the facades, use of different materials, grading plans, minimum rear yard 7.5 m setback, and minimum 30 m wetland buffers. These measures conform to the OP (OP s. 5.0).
Being designed with mass, height, and scale to fit the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood with no adverse impacts.
22The Tribunal finds that the Settlement:
PPS
a) Is consistent with the PPS, as the proposed development provides a modest context appropriate development and growth within a Settlement Area (PPS s. 1.1.3.1 “settlement areas shall be the focus for growth and development”).
b) Is transit-supportive and takes advantage of the existing transit infrastructure while accommodating a range of housing options through redevelopment in an area where intensification can be accommodated (PPS s. 1.1.3.3).
c) Promotes and facilitates intensification and compact form to the appropriate development standards (PPS s. 1.1.3.4).
d) Addresses the natural heritage policies in PPS s. 2 by:
i) providing a minimum 30 m buffer that will protect the Environmental Protection zone for the long term; and
ii) conveying the lands (to be zoned ‘open space’) surrounding the McKenzie Marsh to the Town as buffers to protect the wetland for the long term.
e) Deals appropriately with the floodplain hazard in the northern portion of the Subject Property (abutting St. John’s Sideroad) by providing emergency access, thus addressing the PPS s.3.1 flood plain hazards provision.
Growth Plan
f) Conforms to s. 1.2.1 of the Growth Plan’s principles, which the Settlement
“a) supports the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support healthy and active living and meet people’s needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime; c) supports a range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units…; d) protects and enhance natural heritage, hydrologic, and landform systems, features, and functions.”
g) Conforms to s. 2.2.1.2 by directing growth to a settlement area within the delineated built-up area, served by existing proximate transit with existing public service facilities, and the proposed development supports the achievement of complete communities.
h) Addresses the housing objectives in s. 2.2.6, by contributing to the achievement of the minimum density targets of 50% each year for the Town through a range and mix of housing options and densities (s. 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.2) and a mix of unit sizes to accommodate a diverse range of household sizes and incomes (s. 2.2.6.3).
i) Conforms to the Growth Plan through a modest residential intensification within a settlement area serviceable by existing infrastructure and municipal services. The proposed development supports the land use goals, provincial growth management and natural heritage policies of the Growth Plan.
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP)
j) The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan was established pursuant to the Lake Simcoe Protection Act 2008 to protect and restore the Lake’s ecological health. It applies to area runoff that drains into the Lake. The relevant technical studies have been provided with the applications. Mr. Pileggi opined that the proposed development conforms to the LSPP.
ROP
k) The proposal conforms to the ROP, s. 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3, where an objective of the ROP is to ensure that the Community Areas are pedestrian-oriented, close to services and open spaces and transit-oriented. The Subject Property is close to Yonge Street, which is designated as a rapid transit corridor. Thus, this development will promote active transportation and be part of a complete community.
l) The townhouse development will provide housing for future residents and assist the Region and municipality in meeting its housing and density targets. The density in the proposal will help support higher transit usage by directing the density to the Rapid Transit Corridor on Yonge Street (ROP s. 6.3.13, s. 6.3.16).
OP
m) The proposed development is a ground-related built form that complements and is compatible with the single detached dwellings and the existing townhouse’s built form in the area. The proposed development is on the periphery of the Stable Neighbourhoods of which OP s. 7.5.1 notes are protected from incompatible forms of development. Nevertheless, these areas are allowed to “evolve…with gentle forms of intensification”. The proposal on the Subject Property represents a modest intensification development that is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood and can co-exist without adverse impacts to the area.
n) Mr. Pileggi stated s. 7.5.1.3 f) and 7.5.1.4 direct that denser housing forms development on edges of Stable Neighbourhoods along arterials and collector roads shall provide a transition in heights and densities to the lots in the interior of the stable neighbourhood. The Subject Property is located on the periphery of the Stable Neighbourhood, fronts onto an arterial road, St. John’s Sideroad. The Stable Neighbourhood designation permits buildings up to three storeys in height. The proposed townhouses are three storeys, and the maximum height is 12 m, with appropriate setbacks and buffers that provide the height and density transition.
o) The townhouses transition seamlessly to the adjoining single-detached dwellings. The setback from the street and neighbouring properties matches the existing setback patterns. Thus, a similar streetscape is maintained. The townhouse development does not alter the neighbourhood character while maintaining the area’s low-density character. The proposed height will be compatible with the adjacent dwellings.
p) A portion of the northern part of the Subject Property is designated Environmental Protection Area on Schedule ‘B’ – Land Use Plan, and pursuant to OP s.12.2, a minimum vegetation protection zone is required. The designation is intended to protect the natural features, functions and natural state that are part of the Greenland System. The wetland area has been staked at a minimum 30 m buffer with additional buffer areas zoned ‘open spaces’ provided to protect the Environmental Protection Area.
q) The proposed development’s low-rise compact built form on the periphery of an existing community is in keeping with the built form character and density of the area.
r) The proposed development of multiple units utilizes the Subject Property optimally while maximizing the use of public infrastructure and minimizing disruption to the surrounding area.
s) The Settlement Proposal links the development to existing trails and green spaces, allows for active transportation, and provides safe emergency access and egress in the event of flood hazards. The proposal conforms to the OP policies pertaining to Natural Heritage and hazards.
ZBL
t) The Subject Property is zoned Detached Third Density Residential [R3(50)] and Environmental Protection Zone (EP) by the Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended.
u) Permitted uses include detached dwellings, second suites and home occupations. The proposal requires a ZBA to facilitate the proposed development and to incorporate site-specific development standards.
v) The purpose of the proposal is to rezone the lands to R8 - Townhouse Dwelling Residential and O - Open Space, to facilitate the site-specific development standards and to zone the Open Space and buffer lands in an appropriate zone.
CONCLUSION
23The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement represents good planning and that the proposed draft ZBA and Site Plan have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the Growth Plan, the ROP and the OP.
24The Tribunal will grant the appeals in part and withhold the Final Order subject to receipt of the final form draft ZBA and final draft Site Plan with the site plan conditions.
INTERIM ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed in part and,
The draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment 1 to this Order is approved in principle.
The draft Site Plan drawings by TACT Architecture Inc. dated August 12, 2024, attached as Attachment 2 to this Order, are approved in principle.
The Final Order will not be issued until the Town and the Appellant (the Parties) have confirmed in writing and forwarded to the Tribunal for approval:
a) The final form draft Zoning By-law acceptable to the Parties; and
b) The final draft Site Plan with appropriate site plan conditions to implement the Site Plan.
A Final Order will be issued upon receipt and approval of those final form drafts Zoning By-law and Site Plan (Draft Instruments) by the Tribunal.
The Parties shall update the Tribunal on the progress of the Draft Instruments within five months of the date of this Order.
The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of failure to finalize the Draft Instruments or issues arising from the implementation of this Order.
“T.F. NG”
T.F. NG
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.