2167284 Ontario Inc. v Woodstock (City), 2024 CanLII 89463

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 09, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000583

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 2167284 Ontario Inc

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the amendment of the City’s Zoning By-law in order to facilitate the development of 19 townhouse units

Reference Number: ZN8-23-06

Property Address: 360 & 366 Mill Street

Municipality: Woodstock

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000583

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000583

OLT Case Name: 2167284 Ontario Inc. v Woodstock (City)

Heard: August 27, 2024 by Written Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/*Representative
2167284 Ontario Inc.	Raj Kehar, Narmada Gunawardana
City of Woodstock	*David Creery

MEMORANDUM OF WRITTEN DECISION DELIVERED BY ASTRID J. CLOS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The Tribunal convened a Written Hearing with respect to an appeal brought by 2167284 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) of the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the properties municipally addressed as 360 and 366 Mill Street (“Subject Property”) in the City of Woodstock (“City”).

2The Appellant owns two abutting properties in the City with approximately 83.46 metres (“m”) of frontage on Mill Street. The Subject Property has an area of approximately 6,000.43 square metres (“m²”). The existing two single detached homes located on the Subject Property are proposed to be removed.

3The purpose of the ZBA is to allow 19 townhouse units provided in four blocks on the Subject Property. Approximately 38 parking spaces are proposed to be provided in garages, on driveways, as visitor and as accessible parking spaces (“Proposed Development”).

4City Planning staff recommended approval of the ZBA. On April 18, 2024, Council refused the ZBA. The Applicant subsequently appealed the ZBA.

5Participant status was granted to Walter Vereecken and Randy Gordon by the Tribunal at the Case Management Conference.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

6The Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act.

7A Decision of the Tribunal in respect of any authority that affects a planning matter, shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) as set out in s. 3(5) of the Act.

8Any Decision of the Tribunal shall be made pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Act, in that where an Official Plan is in effect, no By-law shall be passed for any purpose that does not conform therewith.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

9Participant Statements were filed with the Tribunal by Walter Vereecken and Randy Gordon.

10The City filed a statement of concern with the Tribunal on August 8, 2024 entered as Exhibit 1,

Council passed the following resolution at the April 18, 2024, City Council meeting:

‘That Woodstock City Council not approve the zone change application submitted by Kuldeep Brar, Jagjit Randhawa and Vansittait Company Inc., whereby the lands described as Part Lot 11 and Part Lot 12, Plan 86, known municipally as 360 and 366 Mill Street, City of Woodstock are to be rezoned from Residential Zone 1 (R1) to Special Residential Zone 3 (R3-sp) to facilitate the development of a 19 unit townhouse development, because it is not in keeping with the neighbourhood;

And further that any comments received from the public were reviewed and considered before the decision was made in relation to this planning matter.’

City Council, in making this decision, expressed concern with compatibility of the proposed development within the existing neighbourhood and specifically:

• Parking is prohibited on Mill Street given its status as an arterial road, truck route and connection to Highway 401. Accordingly, there is no on street parking available in proximity to the proposed development to meet overflow parking demand from the proposed development.

• There are no public parks or play spaces on this side of Mill street and amenity space within the proposed development is limited.

Please be advised that the City of Woodstock will not be calling any witnesses or submitting affidavit evidence for the hearing.

11The City is requesting that the Tribunal issue an order upholding Council’s refusal of the ZBA for the Subject Property.

12The Appellant filed the Land Use Planning Affidavit of Paul Demczak with the Tribunal on August 16, 2024 entered as Exhibit 2.

13The Appellant is requesting that the Tribunal allow the appeal and issue an order approving the ZBA as contained in “J” of Exhibit 2.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

14The Tribunal qualified Paul Demczak to provide expert opinion evidence in the discipline of land use planning with respect to the ZBA. Mr. Demczak indicates in his Affidavit that the ZBA as contained in “J” of Exhibit 2 is the same Zoning By-law recommended for approval by City staff, with no changes.

Matters of Provincial Interest

15Mr. Demczak provided his analysis of how the ZBA had regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, specifically f, h, i, j, p, q, r and s. Mr. Demczak opined that the ZBA would implement development, which is fully municipally serviced, makes efficient use of land within the built boundary, supports public transit, and is located near school, park and healthcare facilities. Mr. Demczak provided his opinion that the ZBA has had regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest that are set out in s. 2 of the Act.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”)

16In his Affidavit Mr. Demczak reviewed his evidence regarding the ZBA’s consistency with the PPS. Specifically, Mr. Demczak provided his opinion that the ZBA will:

• facilitate development in a compact form on existing underutilized lands in the Built-Up Area, use existing infrastructure, and promote efficient land use and development patterns consistent with s. 1.1.1.e.

• implement development in a Settlement Area, in a contextually appropriate compact form, making efficient use of full municipal services, including transit, community services, and infrastructure consistent with s. 1.1.3.1 and 1.1.3.2.a and b.

• be a compatible form of infill redevelopment consistent with s. 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4.

• meet minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment of a minimum of 15% of all new developments to be within built up areas through intensification consistent with s. 1.1.3.5.

• have a compact form, provide a mix of densities allowing for the efficient use of land, infrastructure, and public service facilities by being located on an Arterial Road and in proximity to community facilities, parks, schools, and health care facilities consistent with s. 1.1.3.6.

• provide a range of housing types to improve the overall supply and mix of housing units in the local area while also making more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, including transit consistent with s. 1.4.3.

• promote healthy, active communities served by Woodstock Transit Route 6 Southwest with access from the City’s bicycle route system to reduce reliance on personal automobile travel consistent with s. 1.5.1a and 1.6.7.4.

17Mr. Demczak provided his opinion that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS.

Oxford County Official Plan (“OP”)

18Mr. Demczak outlined in his Affidavit that the OP establishes the overall land use strategy for the County and its eight area municipalities and that the City of Woodstock does not have its own official plan.

19Mr. Demczak identified that the Subject Property is within the ‘Large Urban Centres’ in Schedule C-3 - County of Oxford Settlement Strategy Plan, is designated ‘Residential’ in Schedule W-1 - City of Woodstock Land Use Plan and ‘Low Density Residential’ in Schedule W-3 - City of Woodstock Residential Density Plan.

20Mr. Demczak provided his analysis of s. 7.2.3.1 of the OP with respect to compatible development. He provided that,

The townhouse development maintains the density limit for Low Density Residential areas through a human scaled design that is sensitive to the adjacent land uses. The proposed townhouses are limited to an 11.0 metre building height, whereas the separation distance between buildings is between 17.0-18.5 metres. The building facade is also proposed to be stepped back at the upper level to provide for a comfortable streetwall and mitigate massing impacts of the built form. Appropriate buffering and transition to adjacent sensitive land uses, particularly the westerly adjacent Low Density Residential properties, have been incorporated, including the lowering of finished floor elevation of the development and adherence to the minimum required 7.5 metre rear yard setback to address privacy and overlook concerns.

21Mr. Demczak outlined that development in the Low Density Residential District is limited to a maximum net residential density of 30 units per hectare. Mr. Demczak relies on s. 1.5 of the OP, which states:

It is intended that all figures and quantities contained within this Plan be considered as approximate except where a corresponding policy in this Plan specifically indicates that the figures and quantities are intended to be absolute. Amendments to this Plan will not be required to permit any reasonable deviation from any of the figures or quantities provided the general intent of the Plan is maintained.

Mr. Demczak opined that the net residential density of 30 units per hectare is met by the proposed density of 31.66 in this instance given the above noted policy, therefore, no official plan amendment is required. He further noted that the proposal for 31.66 units per hectare has been supported by City Planning Staff as evidenced in their reports to City Council October 19, 2023 and April 18, 2024 recommending approval.

22Mr. Demczak reviewed s. 7.2.2.5 of the OP, which he pointed out facilitates the development of residential intensification and compact urban form, by anticipating that certain requirements and standards, including zoning standards, may be reduced provided that they are still in keeping with the overall objectives of the OP. Mr. Demczak identified that the ZBA would require only a minor modification to the maximum permitted lot coverage from 35% to 38%. He continued that all other performance standards such as setbacks, height, minimum landscaped open space and amenity area are compliant with the zoning requirements.

23Mr. Demczak reviewed s. 7.2.8.5 of the OP which requires play/recreational opportunities for large developments of 40 or more units. He noted that the Proposed Development comprises only 19 units, therefore, a formal play/recreational area is not provided due to the limited site area. He indicated that, a parkette feature is proposed at the northeast corner of the site, including seating and open space for play. Mr. Demczak pointed out that the Proposed Development provides 62 m² of private outdoor amenity area whereas the R3 zone requires 40 m².

24Mr. Demczak reviewed concerns of the neighbours and offered that,

With respect to privacy concerns to the westerly low density residential properties, the Site benefits from an existing lower grade condition and will further lower the site grading and finished floor elevations by 600mm to minimize visual intrusion and shadow impact onto neighbouring properties. The minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres also applies in addition to the adjacent properties’ building setback condition to create additional separation and opportunity for buffering. Following discussions with the rear adjacent neighbours, additional changes were incorporated to improve privacy concern mitigation measures, including the removal of rear balconies within Blocks A and B and an increase in fence height to 8 feet along the west property line.

25Mr. Demczak explained that the Proposed Development provides parking for each unit, including a driveway parking space and one garage parking space. He noted that the initial proposal had included six parking spaces for visitors, however, the Proposed Development increased this to 12 visitor parking spaces to address community and City Council concern regarding overflow parking. He pointed out that the initial proposal was already in compliance with the Zoning law’s parking regulations.

26Mr. Demczak provided his opinion that the Proposed Development to be implemented by the ZBA is in conformity with the OP.

Participant Statements

27Mr. Demczak indicated that he had reviewed the Participant Statements of Randy Gordon and Walter Vereecken.

28Mr. Demczak notes that the Participant Statements raise concerns with the sufficiency of the parking rate. In response he provided that:

The parking rate provided (2 spaces/unit + 3 spaces per 10 required spaces for visitors parking) is above the requirements of the Zoning By-law for the R3 zone (2 spaces/unit + 1 space per 10 required spaces for visitors parking). Whereas 4 additional parking spaces are required to accommodate visitor parking, the proposed development provides 12 visitor parking spaces between two surface parking areas in response to community concerns regarding parking overflow onto side streets and affecting local traffic as parking is not permitted on Mill Street.

29Mr. Demczak identifies that the Participant Statements raise concern with the potential road noise from increased traffic along Mill Street. In response he provides that:

Mill Street is identified as an Arterial Road, which is the highest order for municipal roads. As described in the Official Plan, Arterial Roads are designed and intended to “[serve] moderate to high volumes of intra-urban and long distance traffic movements at moderate speeds and [have] limited property access.” The Proposed Development adjacent to Mill Street is appropriate and has been reviewed by County Staff who have not raised any concerns regarding the proposed development’s impact on the road network. Further, detailed noise attenuation, if applicable, is intended to be addressed at the site plan approval stage.

City Statement of Concern

30Mr. Demczak reviewed the concerns of City Council related to parking and park/amenity space as included in paragraph [10] of this decision. In response he provides that:

While there is no on-street parking available on Mill Street, the proposed parking rate provided for the development exceeds the applicable Zoning By-law’s parking requirements.

With respect to parks and play spaces, within 1 kilometre (approximately 10-12 minutes walking distance) of the Site are several community facilities and amenities, including daycares, Southside School, St Patrick’s Catholic Elementary School, St Mary’s Catholic High School, Fanshawe College - Woodstock Campus, Kintrea Park, Southside Park and its recreational facilities, Southside Aquatic Centre, Reeves Community Complex, Broadview Park, Hillview Cemetery, and Woodstock Hospital. Adjacent to the Site to the north is the Faith Community Church and approximately 30 metres to the south is a Woodstock Transit bus stop serviced by Route 6 Southwest... Further, the proposed development provides for private rear yard amenity spaces for each of the proposed dwelling units, and a shared amenity at the northeast corner of the site space adjacent to Mill Street.

Concluding Planning Opinion

31Mr. Demczak provided a summary of his professional planning opinion that the ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest as it:

• Has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act,

• Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement,

• Is in conformity with the Oxford County Official Plan

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

32The Tribunal accepts the uncontested planning opinion evidence of Paul Demczak in its entirety and finds that the ZBA (included as Attachment 1) meets all the relevant tests of s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, is in conformity with the County of Oxford Official Plan, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

33Accordingly, the Tribunal allows the appeal and approves the ZBA.

ORDER

34The Tribunal orders THAT the appeal is allowed and By-law No. 8626-10 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.

“Astrid J. Clos”

ASTRID J. CLOS

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK BY-LAW NUMBER _________

A By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 8626-10 as amended.

1. That Schedule "A" to By-Law Number 8626-10, as amended, is hereby amended by changing to ‘R3-57’ the zone symbol of the lands so designated ‘R3-57’ on Schedule “A” attached hereto.

2. That Section 8.3 to By-law Number 8626-10, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following subsection:

“8.3.57 R3-57 WEST SIDE OF MILL ST, NORTH OF BOOT HILL ROAD

(KEY MAP 84)

8.3.57.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law to the contrary, no person shall within any R3-57 Zone use any lot, or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following:

Horizontally-attached dwelling house.

8.3.57.2 Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-Law to the contrary, no person shall within any R3-57 Zone use any lot, or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions:

8.3.57.2.1 Front Yard Depth

Minimum 6.2 m

8.3.57.2.2 Lot Coverage

Maximum 38%

8.3.57.3 That all the provisions of the R3 Zone in Section 8.2 to this By-Law, as amended, shall apply, and further that all other provisions of this By-Law, as amended, that are consistent with the provisions herein contained shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis.”

3. This By-law comes into force in accordance with Section 34(21) and (30) of the

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.