Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 25, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001062

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Sarlie Canada Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit 10 live/work townhomes and a three-storey 16-unit apartment building with retail.

Reference Number: SP04-2024

Property Address: 12, 18, 22, 24, 28 and 34 Collingwood Street East

Municipality/UT: Meaford/Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001062

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001062

OLT Case Name: Sarlie Canada Inc. v. Meaford (Municipality)

Heard: February 10-11, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Sarlie Canada Inc.	Leo Longo
Municipality of Meaford	Sarah Hahn

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to the failure of the Municipality of Meaford (“Municipality”) to make a decision on a site plan application filed by Sarlie Canada Inc. (“Appellant”) for the property municipally known as 12, 18, 22, 24, 28 and 34 Collingwood Street East (“Subject Lands”).

2The Appellant proposes to develop ten four- and five-storey live-work townhomes fronting a pedestrian mews and a three-storey 16-unit mixed-use apartment building with ground floor commercial units. Each townhome is provided two parking spaces via a two-car garage accessed from the rear lanes. Parking for the apartment building is provided by a 29-space surface lot at the rear of the building. The Subject Lands are located within a Heritage Conservation District and the required Heritage Permit has been obtained from the Municipality.

HEARING

3At the start of the merit Hearing, the Tribunal was informed by the Parties that there had been fruitful discussions to date, and it was suggested that with additional time, further scoping or settling of issues could occur. The Tribunal provided some initial time in the morning, then opted to stand down the Hearing for the remainder of the day to give the Parties time to continue their discussions.

4On the second day, the Parties advised that a full settlement had been reached regarding the Site Plan and the Site Plan Agreement and requested the Tribunal’s consideration of same.

5The Tribunal received written and oral evidence in support of the settlement from Kory Chisholm, a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellant, who the Tribunal qualified to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. The following findings are based on Mr. Chisholm’s unchallenged evidence, which the Tribunal accepts.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

6The Subject Lands are approximately 0.502 hectares in size, with approximately 50.6 metres (“m”) of frontage along the north side of Collingwood Street East. They are generally flat but slope from north to south and are currently vacant.

7The Subject Lands are within Downtown Meaford and are within the Meaford Downtown Business Improvement Area and the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District. They are:

a. close to a number of community facilities, recreation facilities and parks;

b. within walking distance to small scale commercial uses along Sykes Street North, which is the Main Street through the Downtown;

c. within a short walking distance to the Meaford Harbour and the waterfront amenity area;

d. within walking distance to Grey Transit Route bus stops which connect to destinations throughout Grey County; and,

e. serviced by existing municipal water and wastewater services.

8Surrounding land uses include:

a. to the North: single-detached dwellings, a massage therapist office, a three-storey apartment building, and McCarrol Park;

b. to the East: a single-detached dwelling and a dental office;

c. to the South: Collingwood Street East, with single-detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, a bookstore, a hardware store, a restaurant, and Meaford Hall Arts and Cultural Centre; and,

d. to the West: a vacant building which formerly served as the Capitol Theatre, and a single-detached dwelling.

EVIDENCE

9It was Mr. Chisholm’s overall opinion that the proposed development, as shown on the Site Plan and subject to the conditions included within the Site Plan Agreement, is appropriate and should be approved. He stated that the proposal:

a. has regard for matters of provincial interest under the Act;

b. is in accordance with s. 41 of the Act;

c. is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”);

d. is in conformity with the County of Grey (“County”) Official Plan;

e. is in conformity with the Municipality Official Plan;

f. is in compliance with the Municipality Zoning By-law; and,

g. provides for a compatible design that does not create any adverse impacts.

10Mr. Chisholm highlighted that the proposed development:

a. directs growth to an appropriate location (that being the Primary Settlement Area) and features intensification and redevelopment of underutilized lands;

b. represents development that is compact, transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented and accessible and contributes to a complete community;

c. has been designed to complement the historic character of the Downtown area, features a range of commercial uses and will strengthen the commercial nature of the Downtown;

d. features the provision of housing above commercial uses and supports a vibrant pedestrian realm; and,

e. optimizes the use of existing services and infrastructure;

11Mr. Chisholm stated that the proposed development is appropriate for the Subject Lands, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

12Upon consideration and in keeping with the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Chisholm, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to both the County and the Municipality Official Plans, complies with the site specific zoning and reflects principles of good land use planning in the public interest. In addition, the Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Act.

13The Tribunal finds that the proposal will feature a well-designed, compact and energy efficient built form, which will create additional housing units and types in a location appropriate for growth with adequate servicing and in close proximity to transit. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development warrants approval.

ORDER

14The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed, in part, and the Site Plan prepared by Lloyd Hunt on January 30, 2025 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

15The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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