Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 27, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000407
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: David Moubarak
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal
Description: To permit the rezoning of the subject property
Reference Number: Z-9689
Property Address: 1494 Commissioners Road West
Municipality: London
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000407
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000407
OLT Case Name: Moubarak v London (City)
Heard: September 26, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| David Moubarak (“Applicant”) | Laura Gurr |
| City of London (“City”) | Aynsley Hovius |
| Matthew Parezanovic and Francyelle Fernandez | Paula Lombardi |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON September 26, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant seeks to redevelop a site municipally known as 1494 Commissioners Road West in the City (“Subject Property”) to construct a four-storey apartment building with 10 units. To this end, the Applicant had applied for a Zoning By-law amendment (“ZBA”). The Appeal is brought pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, due to the City’s refusal of the ZBA.
2On Thursday, September 26, 2024, the Tribunal held its second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the appeal, address status requests and establish next steps in this proceeding.
STATUS REQUEST
3The Tribunal received a written request for Party status from Matthew Parezanovic and Francyelle Fernandez. They own a property immediately to the west of the Subject Property. The Applicant and the City consented to adding them as Parties. The Tribunal directed that the Matthew Parezanovic and Francyelle Fernandez be added as Parties.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
4Counsel for the Parties advised that they wish to explore settlement discussions and therefore requested that a third CMC be scheduled to allow those discussions to be pursued. The Parties requested that the Tribunal note and identify the Issues List on which the settlement discussion would proceed. The agreed upon Issues List is attached to this Decision as Attachment A.
5The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal, as soon as possible, of any settlement, and are encouraged to narrow the issues.
NEXT STEPS
6Considering the proposed settlement discussions, the Tribunal directed that a third CMC be set on Friday, January 24, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing. At that time, the Parties are expected to update the Tribunal on the status of the proceeding. If a complete settlement is reached, the Parties may request that the third CMC be converted into a Settlement Hearing. In that circumstance, they are to provide the relevant documentation in a timely manner.
7Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173
Access Code: 519-389-173
8Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
9Individuals who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
10Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions in this Decision.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
Jean-Pierre BlAIS
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 A
ISSUES LIST
To which version of the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines (“EMGs”) is the proposal required to comply: 2021 or the former 2007 EMGs?
Is the development proposal consistent with section 2 of the Planning Act?
Is the development proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) in terms of the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, specifically policies 2.2, 2.3.1, 3.6.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.1.5, and 4.1.8?
Does the development proposal conform to The London Plan (“Plan”)? Specifically:
a. Policies 55, 59, 61, and 62 of the Our Strategy part of the Plan.
b. Policies 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, and 154 of the Our City part of the Plan.
c. Policies 193, 199, 252, 284, 494–497, 505, 506, and 508 of the City Building Policies part of the Plan.
d. Policies 1367–1377, 1413–1416, 1443, and 1500–1503 of the Environmental Policies part of the Plan.
e. Policies 916, 918, 919, 937, 938, 939, and 940 of the Place Type Policies part of the Plan.
f. Policies 1570 and 1578 of the Our Tools part of the Plan.
Is the ecological buffer being proposed between the Warbler Woods Environmentally Significant Area (“ESA”) and the development proposal appropriate, consistent with provincial policy, and in conformity with The London Plan?
Is the interior side yard appropriate in the circumstances to provide adequate screening, protection for boundary trees, and privacy to the abutting properties?
Does the development proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?