Melrose Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town), 2024 CanLII 97525

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000626

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Melrose Investments Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a reduced lot width

Reference Number: A/088/2024

Property Address: 3280 South Service Road W

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000626

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000626

OLT Case Name: Melrose Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: August 26, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Town of Oakville/Hamilton	Dennis Perlin
Melrose Investments Inc.	Russell Cheeseman Stephanie Fleming

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G. POLITIS ON AUGUST 26, 2024, AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was originally scheduled as a hearing to consider a settlement. The hearing is for an appeal relating to a minor variance application (“MV”) pursuant to s. 45 (12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), to permit a reduced lot width of the landscaping required for outside storage along the east and west interior lot lines resulting in the denial of the MV at the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”), in the Town of Oakville (“City”). The appeal has been filed by Melrose Investments Inc. (“Appellant”/“Applicant”) regarding the property located at 3280 South Service Road West, Oakville/Hamilton (“Subject Property”).

2There were no further Party requests.

3The Parties agreed that the MVA is to be assessed under s. 45 (1) of the Act. The Parties have agreed to resolve the appeal as set out in their minutes of settlement (“MOS”).

PROPOSED VARIANCE(S)

4The proposed MV seeking relief from the current Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) proposed by the Applicant to the City are as follows:

1. To permit a minimum width of the landscaping required along the edge of the outside storage abutting the westerly interior side lot line from 7.5 metres (“m”) to 3.5 m;
2. To permit a minimum width of landscaping required along the edge of the outside storage abutting the easterly interior side lot line (adjacent to the stormwater management facility) from 7.5m to 5.5 m.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

5This MOS proposes to authorize the variances, and the Tribunal must be satisfied that the MV as set out in s 45 (1) of the Act:

• Maintain the general intent and purpose of the applicable official plans;
• Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
• Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
• Are minor in nature

6Further, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the MV are also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), The Growth Plan of the Golden Horseshoe and have regard to matters of Provincial interest, as well as the decision of the Approval Authority and the information that was before it.

HEARING EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

7The following are marked Exhibits for the hearing:

• (Exhibit 1) Minutes of Settlement
• (Exhibit 2) Witness Affidavit from G. David Faye
• (Exhibit 3) Diagram and Phases of Subject Property

8Mr. David Faye was sworn in by the Tribunal following a careful review of his curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. Faye’s opinion evidence was presented by both parties.

9Mr. Faye provided the Tribunal with a high-level overview of the appeal and shared the overall description of the Subject Property and its current zoning. A map is attached and marked as (Exhibit 2, Exhibit “C”) which reflects the Melrose Business Park consisting of three (3) phases. In Mr. Faye’s testimony, Phase Three (3) is where the Subject Property is located. Mr. Faye testified that the surrounding uses of the Subject Property include the QEW Provincial Highway, the Metrolinx and CN rail corridors, the Suncor Energy depot, the RioCan Centre, Cineplex movie theater and restaurants. There are several Industrial buildings and a few industrial blocks of land. Phase Three (3) has received conditional site plan approval by the City. Mr. Faye testified that the Livable Oakville Official Plan (“LOOP”) designates the Phase Three (3) lands Industrial and Business Employment. Those designations are set out in (Exhibit 2, Exhibit “C”).

10Mr. Faye’s evidence included conditions that were supported by both the City and the CoA. They are as follows:

(a) The outdoor storage area be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated March 6, 2024, and overall landscape plan dated September 1, 2022; and,

(b) That the approvals expire three (3) years from the date of the OLT decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed development.

11Mr. Faye testified that the MV are necessary due to the requirement in the ZBL for a 7.5 m landscaping width. Mr. Faye also discussed the site plan of Phase Three (3) upon which he has illustrated the two (2) MV being sought marked as (Exhibit 2, Exhibit “I”). Mr. Faye went on to say that the MV are appropriate and ensure that valuable industrial land is not used for landscaped buffering where it is unnecessary.

12Mr. Faye continued with his testimony assuring the Tribunal that he had reviewed the requested MV and their proposed conditions.

13Mr. Faye considered the proposed MV utilizing the four tests as set out in s. 45 (12) of the Act. In his professional opinion, Mr. Faye opined that the MV satisfied the four tests.

14Mr. Faye’s testimony regarding the four tests under s. 45 (1) of the Act, are stated as follows in paragraphs [15] to [23] inclusive.

General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

15Mr. Faye testified that the LOOP designates the Phase Three (3) lands Industrial and Business employment. The Oakville Official Plan (“OP”) provides a wide range of business and industrial uses, predominately within enclosed buildings and to service industrial operations with minimal impacts on the surrounding area. Mr. Faye opined that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.

General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL

16Mr. Faye testified that although MV 1 and 2 require reduced widths they are considered minimal. The intent is to permit the minimum width of the landscaping along the easterly and westerly interior side lot lines and regulating the landscape requirements abutting an outdoor storage use. This is to provide separations to uses on adjacent properties. Also, they are to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the outdoor storage operations. Mr. Faye opined that the MV provide adequate separation for the westerly and easterly lot lines and the MV will not have an unacceptable adverse impact. Furthermore, Mr. Faye stated that the proposed landscape strips adjacent to the outdoor storage area will be landscaped with trees and/or natural vegetation. It is Mr. Faye’s professional opinion that the requested MV 1 and 2 maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Subject Lands

17Mr. Faye testified that the MV provide the outdoor storage uses set out in the OP as well as the ZBL. The outdoor storage area will conform with the approved site plan. Mr. Faye opined that the proposed MV represent appropriate development and use of the land.

Variances are Minor

18Mr. Faye testified that the MV do not have any negative impacts to the Subject Property and are considered minor in nature.

19Mr. Faye testified that the PPS s. 1.1 and its subsections, speak to efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. According to Mr. Faye, under the PPS the industrial lands would contribute to employment and provide opportunities for economic development as well as encourage development in settlements on full municipal services. Mr. Faye opined that the application is consistent with applicable PPS policies.

20Mr. Faye went on to say that the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 (“Growth Plan”) provides a framework for building stronger, prosperous, complete communities by better managing growth. Policies are flexible to capitalize on new economic employment opportunities as they emerge. The plan recognizes the importance of an adequate supply of serviced employment land in well-designed business parks.

21Mr. Faye stated that in his professional opinion the MV is in conformity with Growth Plan policies.

22Mr. Faye testified that the Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”) encourages sustainable new employment growth in a compact form in appropriate locations throughout Halton Region that provide a range of employment uses while making effective use of existing infrastructure. Mr. Faye opined that the MV conform with the RHOP.

23The LOOP encourages industrial development within designated areas of the Town of Oakville on full municipal services where public transportation and supportive services are also available to employees. In his opinion, Mr. Faye opined that the MV conform with the LOOP.

FINDINGS

24The Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence provided by Mr. Faye, through his uncontroverted testimony, that both minor variances individually and collectively have satisfied the four tests identified under s. 45 of the Act. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the MV have proper regards for matters of provincial interest set out in the Act and are consistent with the PPS, the Growth Plan and represents good planning. The Tribunal finds that the totality of evidence before the Tribunal supports the authorization of the MV.

ORDER

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed and the minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 of the Town of Oakville as described in paragraph [4] of this Decision to permit a reduced lot width are authorized subject to all of the conditions listed below:

(a) The outdoor storage area be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated March 6, 2024, and overall landscape plan dated September 1, 2022; and,

(b) That the approvals expire three (3) years from the date of the OLT Decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed development.

“G. Politis”

G. POLITIS

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.