1000239297 Ontario Inc. v. Ramara (Township), 2025 CanLII 33026

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000931

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1000239297 Ontario Inc

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor variance for a reduction in the minimum interior side yard setback, minimum landscaped open space and required parking space provisions for the construction of a new mixed-use building

Reference Number: A-7/24

Property Address: 2298 Highway 12

Municipality: Ramara/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000931

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000931

OLT Case Name: 1000239297 Ontario Inc. v. Ramara (Township)

Heard: October 31, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1000239297 Ontario Inc	Alexandra Whyte
Township of Ramara	John Ewart

DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

LINK TO ORDER

1This hearing was convened to consider the appeals by 1000239297 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) of the decision of the Township of Ramara (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on August 13, 2024, to deny the minor variances within the Application.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS

2The “Subject Property” includes 2294 & 2298 Highway 12. 2294 Highway 12 is currently vacant and 2298 Highway 12 is occupied by a two-storey mixed use building.

3The Subject Property will accommodate a proposed three storey mixed use building, with commercial at grade and residential units on floors two and three.

4The Subject Property is designated to be within the “Village” designation of the Township of Ramara Official Plan and designated as “Village Commercial” l within the Intern Secondary Plan for Brechin Village and the Township of Ramara Zoning Bylaw #2005.85.

5The Subject Property is subject to Township of Ramara By-Law No. 2024.17 (“Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-Law"). As identified in Section 2.1, the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-Law applies to properties zoned Village Commercial within the areas defined in Schedule A, which include the Subject Property.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

6The proposal outlines the development of the Subject Property into a four-storey mixed-use building. The ground floor will feature three commercial units with a total gross floor area of approximately 371 square metre (“m²”). Above this, there will be 30 new residential units spread across three floors, totaling around 1,950 m² of floor area. To make way for the new building and surface parking area, the existing two-storey mixed-use building will be demolished.

7The plan includes 27 residential parking spaces at the rear of the building, providing a rate of 0.9 spaces per dwelling unit. Additionally, 10 parking spaces are proposed at the front of the building. However, these spaces are within 14 meters(“m”) of the MTO road allowance for Highway 12 and may be removed if the highway is widened in the future. These extra parking spaces are intended for use by the commercial units but are not counted towards the zoning parking requirements.

PLANNING HISTORY

8The purpose of the application is to request minor variances to the required parking space provisions , modifications to setback requirements and landscaping lot percentage coverage, to allow for the construction of a new mixed-use building.

9This includes the reduction in the parking space widths, the reduction of the required retail commercial spaces to 0, and a reduction of spaces for apartments from 1.5 spaces per apartment to 0.9, resulting in 27 spaces.

10The proposal allows for 10 surplus parking spaces at the front of the building.

11The requested variances are:

1. To permit 27 parking spaces associated with the residential component, whereas 45 spaces are required;
2. To permit zero parking spaces associated with the commercial component, whereas 19 spaces are required;
3. To permit a reduction in the size of the parking spaces to 2.6m, whereas 2.8m is required;
4. To permit a reduction in the width of the accessible parking spaces from 4.0m to 3.4m for one Type A parking space, and to 2.4m with a 1.5m access aisle for one Type B parking space;
5. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback (north side) of 0m, whereas 3.0m is required;
6. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback (south side) of 0m, whereas 3.0m is required; and
7. To permit a minimum landscaped open space of 10%, whereas 20% is required.

12Township Staff, through Report # BP-31-24, recommended approval with three conditions;

1. The variances pertain only to the request as submitted with the application.
2. That the Appellant obtain Site Plan Control application approval, inclusive of an agreement pertaining to the construction, snow storage removal, maintenance and use of laneway at rear of property, and to ensure the appropriate and orderly development of the subject lands, including stormwater management.
3. Merger of the two lots known as 2294 and 2298 Highway 12.

13On August 13, 2024, the COA denied the Application and the aforementioned Variances.

SUBMISSIONS

14The Tribunal heard opinion evidence from three witnesses.

For the Appellant;

1. Ms. Jennifer Stong, a Land Use Planner for the Township, under Subpoena
2. Mr. Alexander Fleming, a Transportation Engineer and Partner with C.F. Crozier & Associates Inc.

For the Township;

1. Mr. Michael Barton, a Land Use Planner and President and Founder of MB1 Development Consulting Inc.

15All witnesses were qualified with no objections and affirmed to provide expert evidence.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Planning Act – Section 2

16Section 2 of the Planning Act requires that the Tribunal in carrying out its responsibility, must have regard for matters of provincial interest.

17Ms. Stong offered that, given the Subject Property is located within a primary settlement area with access to municipal water and sewer services, a higher density development would be a highly efficient use of these municipal resources.

18Ms. Stong stated that the public's concerns, including those related to stormwater management, drainage, parking, and building code issues, have either been addressed by the Appellant or will be resolved during the site plan stage.

19The Tribunal heard that Planning necessitates a balance between public and private interests. Amid a housing crisis, this type of development serves the public and provincial interests by providing much-needed housing solutions.

20Mr. Barton’s analysis of Section 2 of the Act was focused on the required parking as stipulated by the by-law and the fact that the Appellant did not seek an exemption under the cash-in-lieu by-law.

21Mr. Barton provided that the proposal does not meet the required parking standards for the mixed-use building, and the Appellant has not sought an exemption under the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-Law to enter into an agreement with the Township for the use of public parking facilities and payment of the necessary fees to support off-site parking infrastructure.

22The minor variances requested to reduce the minimum parking requirements aim to lower performance standards without contributing to the provision, enhancement, and maintenance of the infrastructure that the proposed uses will benefit from.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 & 2024

23At the time of the submission of the Application, the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”) 2020 and the Growth Plan were in force and effect.

24Pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Planning Act, decisions by the Tribunal, are required to be consistent with the provincial policy statement in effect at the time of the decision. In this instance, the PPS 2024 applies.

25Ms. Stong offered that the PPS 2024 mandates planning authorities to encourage higher densities for new housing developments. This approach aims to efficiently utilize land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities, while also promoting active transportation.

26Ms. Stong opined that the Application would facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilized commercial site, thereby offering additional commercial space and employment opportunities while also boosting the housing supply in the Township. The proposal aims to make efficient use of land and municipal services.

27In support of the Proposal, Mr. Fleming verified that the development provides an appropriate parking supply and further supports the use of active transportation.

28Mr. Fleming offered supporting data from the Parking General Manual, 6th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

29The Tribunal was presented with data that the peak parking demand for 1-bedroom units is 0.93 spaces per unit, while the peak parking demand for 2+ bedroom units is 1.27 spaces per unit.

30Mr. Fleming further provided that applying the ITE parking generation rates to the proposed development results in a total residential parking demand of 30 spaces for the 24 one-bedroom and six 2-bedroom units.

31Mr. Barton noted that while the proposal involves the intensification and redevelopment of a property within a settlement area, it does not provide an adequate level of on-site parking. Additionally, the proposal fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Township's Zoning By-Law, which are intended to ensure compatibility and mitigate impacts on the surrounding community.

Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

Does the application maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans of the County of Simcoe and the Township of Ramara?

32Ms. Stong informed the Tribunal that the goal is to encourage and support compact and efficient land use and built forms that expand housing options and reduce dependence on private automobiles. This approach aims to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and is backed by existing or planned municipal services and infrastructure.

33Ms. Stong explained that the "Village" designation in the Township Official Plan is intended to support significant growth and the development of mixed-use projects within the defined settlement area.

34Ms. Stong testified that the proposal aligns with the overall intent and purpose of the Official Plans. It represents a permitted land use, is fully serviced by municipal water and sewage infrastructure, and is situated in an area designated for intensification. The proposal meets density requirements, promotes compact and efficient land use, supports the concept of a complete community, and, accordingly, through the evidence of Mr. Fleming, offers suitable parking facilities.

35Mr. Barton provided that although the proposal aims to create a denser and more compact land use, thereby expanding housing options, the requested minor variances fail to adequately contribute to the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support adequate parking for the proposed residential and commercial units.

36Mr. Barton reiterated that the Applicant has not shown that the proposed parking supply is backed by site-specific transportation engineering analysis. Consequently, any reduction in the required parking supply, as per the Zoning By-Law performance standards, should be obtained through an exemption under the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-Law, which involves an agreement with the Township and the payment of the necessary fees.

37Mr. Barton opined that the requested variances, both individually and collectively, do not uphold the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans.

Does the application maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

Variances #1, 2 - Parking Spaces

38Through Ms. Stong, the Tribunal heard that while the Application, through variances, seeks 27 parking spaces, there are an additional 10 parking spaces actually being provided at the front of the building. Further, the 10 surplus parking spaces meet municipal requirements for setbacks, and as such, the parking spaces can still be considered part of the development in a supportive role.

39Mr. Fleming informed the Tribunal that the request to the Committee of Adjustment sought a reduction in the parking supply to 27 spaces despite the concept plan showing 37 spaces. The additional 10 spaces were not included in the variance request because they fall within the MTO's 14-meter setback area. The MTO typically mandates a 14-meter setback from the right-of-way (“ROW”) of roadways under their jurisdiction for buildings, structures, etc., to accommodate potential future road widening.

40Mr. Fleming confirmed, upon consulting the MTO’s Highways Program,that there are no planned expansions of Highway 12 in this area or nearby.

41The parking arrangement aligns with the configurations at other properties fronting Highway 12 in Brechin. The adjacent properties to the north have parking directly at the highway ROW, while the Township municipal office on the opposite side of Highway 12 has parking set back three meters from the highway ROW.

42Mr. Fleming testified that it is standard industry practice to consider the varying peak parking demands of different uses within a shared parking site. For the Subject Property, the peak parking demand for commercial uses occurs during the day, while the peak demand for residential uses is in the evening and overnight. This allows parking spaces to be utilized by commercial users during the day and by residential users in the evening when commercial activities typically cease. Consequently, the appropriate supply of parking is not merely the sum of the parking required for each use but rather a reduced amount that accounts for the alternating peak demands of the residential and commercial uses.

43Mr. Fleming further provided that the parking provided on site can support both the 30 residential units and three commercial units. However, during times when peak parking demand exceeds the proposed supply, there is sufficient on-street parking nearby to accommodate any temporary overflow.

44Mr. Barton reiterated that Performance standards for residential and commercial parking are typically established to ensure that there are enough on-site parking spaces to meet anticipated demand without negatively affecting parking facilities on neighboring properties. To provide flexibility for intensification within the "Village Commercial" designation of the Subject Property, the Township enacted the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-Law. This by-law allows for exemptions to the minimum on-site parking requirements in exchange for a payment.

Variances #3, 4 - Parking Space Dimensions

45The Tribunal heard the Zoning by-law specifies in Section 3.(10) Parking Space Dimensions that an off-street parking space shall have a minimum stall size of 2.8m wide by 5.5m long. The proposed parking space size for the subject development is 2.6m wide by 5.5m long.

46Mr. Fleming prepared for review, a turning vehicle diagram which demonstrated that automobiles can enter, park and exit the 2.6m wide parking spaces. For the benefit of the reader, the vehicle sizes used to test were equivalent to a Ford F-150 pickup truck or a Honda Odyssey minivan.

47Mr. Barton provided that the minimum parking space dimensions are regulated to ensure adequate access and overall site functionality. Township staff are confident that the requested reductions to the minimum parking space dimensions align with standards accepted in other municipalities. Additionally, the site plan approval process will allow Township staff to assess the functionality of the reduced parking space dimensions within the overall site plan.

Variances #5,6 - Side Yard Setbacks

48Ms. Stong provided that the irregular northern lot line poses challenges for the proposed building to comply with the minimum setback requirements.

49Ms. Stong elaborated that if the building were moved farther back to the wider part of the property, it would be positioned closer to the residential properties at the rear. Further, reduced setbacks are common in many instances and are consistent with the character of the surrounding area.

50Additionally, the site's ingress and egress, with access from both Highway 12 and the rear laneway, offer a unique opportunity to utilize the entire width of the property for a drive-through within the building structure.

51Mr. Barton informed the Tribunal that the minimum interior side yard regulation aims to ensure proper setbacks and spatial separation between structures on the Subject Property and adjacent properties. These factors help mitigate impacts such as privacy, shadow/sunlight, drainage, property maintenance, and building/fire code considerations.

Variance #7 - Landscaped Open Space

52Ms. Stong testified that landscaped open space is not intended to serve as a common area for congregation or leisure. She noted that the nearest park is only 230m away and that parkland requirements would be addressed through the cash-in-lieu of parkland by-law during the site plan approval stage.

53Ms. Stong also indicated that stormwater management and drainage issues would be addressed during the site plan approval stage. At that time, the Appellant will be required to provide a stormwater management report to ensure that stormwater can be effectively managed on site.

54Ms. Stong, supported by Mr. Fleming's opinion, provided that the requested variances, both individually and collectively, uphold the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law.

55Mr. Barton maintained his opinion that the requested minor variances to the minimum parking requirements do not uphold the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. Furthermore, the cumulative impact of all the requested variances will not result in land use and built form that aligns with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law.

Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

56Ms. Stong testified that in the Village Commercial zone, buildings with dwellings above the first storey are permitted up to a height of 20m, allowing for up to six storeys. The proposed building is four storeys high, which is desirable and more compatible with the surrounding area.

57Ms. Stong further opined, due to the irregular northern lot line, it is challenging for the building to meet the required interior side yard setbacks. If the building were pushed further back, it would be closer to the residential dwellings to the west.

58Mr. Fleming opined that the primary and secondary access points will ensure smooth traffic flow and accessibility to the site. Further, the proposed parking supply is appropriate based on current industry standards. The development's proximity to local amenities and services supports reduced parking requirements, promoting a walkable community. Mr. Fleming concluded that the development plan aligns with sound transportation planning principles.

59Ms. Stong and Mr. Fleming collectively agreed that the application is deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

60Mr. Barton opined the development proposal and requested minor variances, both individually and collectively, are not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property. The requested relief for side yards, landscaping, and parking space dimensions, along with significant reductions to the minimum residential and commercial parking requirements, indicate overdevelopment of the Subject Property. Although this location is suitable for intensification, the proposed scale of development is not necessary to achieve the Official Plan objectives and significantly intensify the Subject Property relative to existing conditions.

Be minor in nature

61Mr. Fleming provided that the reductions in the parking spaces is nominal, as demonstrated. Further, the on-site parking proposed is more than adequate for the proposed development, and as such, there will be no off-site adverse impacts to the municipality’s parking supply.

62Through her evidence, Ms. Stong provided that through Site Plan approval, issues such as stormwater management and drainage, use of the laneway, snow removal, etc. will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Township.

63Ms. Stong and Mr. Fleming collectively agreed that the variances, individually and cumulatively, are minor in nature.

64Mr. Barton opined, the requested minor variances, both cumulatively and individually, seeking relief from the minimum parking requirements, are not minor in nature. These variances will significantly reduce the number of parking spaces required on the Subject Property and increase the demand for off-site facilities maintained by the Township and County, which are relied upon by other members of the public.

FINDINGS

65The hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Appellant.

66The Tribunal’s authority to authorize variances is given under s. 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances.

67The tests require that the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
• be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
• be minor in nature

68The Tribunal accepts and agrees with the evidence of Ms. Stong and Mr. Fleming.

69The Tribunal is satisfied that the favourable Staff Report #BP-31-24 addressed any concerns with the Proposal by recommending detailed conditions.

70The Tribunal agrees that the Application aims to redevelop an underutilized commercial site, creating additional commercial space and employment opportunities, while also boosting the housing supply in the Township.

71The Tribunal finds, the reduction in parking spaces will not create adverse affects as Brechin's walkability allows for a reduced parking supply, benefiting both future residents and visitors to the ground floor commercial spaces.

72The Tribunal further finds that the reduced setbacks are common in downtown areas where intensification and redevelopment are encouraged. Further, the requested reduction in landscaped open space lot coverage, based on the irregular shape of the subject lands and combined with the need for a parking area, will not generate unfavourable sight lines.

73Additionally, the Tribunal is confident that at the Site Plan Approval stage, issues regarding parking in lieu, stormwater management, building codes including fire regulations and property maintenance will be addressed.

74The Tribunal further finds that the four tests in the Act are met, including that the variances are minor, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, they maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan.

ORDER

75THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law 438-86 are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

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

1The variances pertain only to the request as submitted with the application.

2That the owner’s obtain Site Plan Control application approval, inclusive of an agreement pertaining to the construction, snow storage removal, maintenance and use of laneway at rear of property, and to ensure the appropriate and orderly development of the subject lands, including stormwater management.

3Merger of the two lots known as 2294 and 2298 Highway 12.