Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000803
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Roseville Properties Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 10 street townhouses
Reference Number: Z.1714.28
Property Address: 106-114 Robinson Street and 71 Water Street
Municipality: Town of Oakville
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000803
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000803
OLT Case Name: Roseville Properties Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
Heard: September 23, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Roseville Properties Inc. | R. Cheeseman S. Fleming |
| Town of Oakville | N. Chandra J. Potma (Articling Student)* |
| Region of Halton | K. Yerxa |
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns the settlement of an appeal filed by Roseville Properties Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), regarding the Town of Oakville’s (“Town”) failure to render a decision on the Appellant’s application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) within the statutory timeframe, for the property municipally known as 106-114 Robinson Street and 71 Water Street in the City (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant had also appealed the requirements of Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) pursuant to subsection 41(12.0.1) of the Act, for the Subject Property, which was consolidated with the ZBA appeal at the previous Case Management Conference. The Appellant advised the Tribunal on September 9, 2024, that it withdrew its s. 41(12.0.1) appeal to allow the Town to issue a revised SPA. The Town issued the revised SPA on September 12, 2024. Accordingly, this hearing is only in respect of the settlement of the ZBA appeal.
3One of the Parties, Janice Johnston, advised the Tribunal on August 8, 2024, she was withdrawing as a Party to the ZBA appeal.
4The Subject Property, currently vacant, has an area of approximately 0.4 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Robinson Street and Navy Street in the Town. The Subject Property is between a nine-storey mixed-used residential/commercial building to the North, and low-density residential uses to the South.
5The Parties’ proposed settlement contemplates developing the Subject Property as 10 three-storey street townhouse units fronting on Navy Street and Robinson Street. To do so, the draft ZBA proposes to rezone the Subject Property from Residential Medium 4 Special Provision 16 (RM4-SP16) to Residential Medium 1 with special provisions (RM1-SP16).
6For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the appeal in part, and approves the ZBA application in Attachment 1.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
7When considering appeals under s. 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal shall:
a. Have regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act;
b. Ensure its decision is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS 2020”), as set out in s. 3(5) of the Act;
c. Ensure its decision conforms, or does not conflict, with any provincial plans that are in effect on the date of the decision – in this case the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (the “Growth Plan”); and
d. Ensure its decision conforms with the Region’s Official Plan (“ROP”) and Town’s Official Plan (“TOP”).
SUBMISSIONS
8Evidence in support of the ZBA was provided by the Appellant’s Planner, Paul Lowes. Mr. Lowes is a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario, a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and has been practicing as a land use Planner for over 38 years. He was duly qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in land use planning.
9The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Paul Lowes, sworn September 16, 2024, as Exhibit 2.
10Mr. Lowes testified that in his opinion, the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS 2020, as the proposed development represents the gentle intensification of an underutilized vacant parcel of land and introduces 10 new units in a predominantly low-density neighbourhood adjacent to the downtown core. It also provides a mix of housing options in an area both with transit options and within walking distances of the downtown.
11With respect to the Growth Plan, Mr. Lowes opined the proposed development will promote the creation of complete communities and generate additional housing units that are within walking distance to transit, public service facilities, the downtown, and conforms to the relevant policies and objectives of the Growth Plan.
12Concerning the ROP and TOP, Mr. Lowes’ evidence was that the built form and design of the townhouse units respect the existing built form character and provides a transition between the denser form of development downtown and the low-density residential area to the south. The massing and height of the proposed three-storey townhouse units are below the permitted height of the in-force zoning (RM4-SP16), and the proposed setbacks are greater than in same.
13Mr. Lowes concluded that in his opinion, the ZBA proposed represent good planning, and is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
14The Tribunal accepts the above evidence and uncontroverted professional opinions of Mr. Lowes.
15The Tribunal finds that the ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, 2020, conforms to the Growth Plan, conforms to the ROP and TOP, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, and that Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-132 found in Attachment 1 is approved.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
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