Forum Asset Management v. Guelph (City), 2025 CanLII 33029

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001227

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Forum Asset Management

Property Owner: University of Guelph

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To permit a new student housing facility

Reference Number: OZS24-007

Property Address: 601 Scottsdale Drive

Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001227

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001227

OLT Case Name: Forum Asset Management v. Guelph (City)

Heard: March 10, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Forum Asset Management and Forum 601 Scottsdale LP	Johanna Shapira
City of Guelph	Allison Thornton Kip Phillips (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY gregory j. INGRAM on March 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns a hearing to consider the settlement of an appeal filed by Forum Asset Management and Forum 601 Scottsdale LP (“Applicant”) of Zoning By-law No. 2024-21009 (“2024 ZBA”), which amended the City of Guelph (“City”) Zoning By-law No. 2023-20790 (“CZBL”) to permit the completion of the second phase of a two-phase project which adds housing for students attending the University of Guelph. The proposed development consists of three multi-storey residence buildings (“Proposed Development”) that will be integrated with the previously completed Phase One of the project. The Proposed Development is located at 601 Scottsdale Drive in the City (“Subject Lands”), which is owned by the University of Guelph and being leased to the Applicant on a long-term basis for the exclusive use of students attending the University of Guelph.

2The City, on the recommendation of planning staff, adopted an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and enacted the 2024 ZBA on November 19, 2024, to permit Phase 2 of the Proposed Development.

3The Applicant launched an appeal of the City’s 2024 ZBA pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), indicating that in its current form it does not allow the Applicant to respond to the “public agency comments or to optimize the built form and infrastructure” on the Subject Lands, and as a result, needs to be modified.

4The appeal notice also indicated that the Applicant takes the position, without prejudice, that the Proposed Development is exempt from the Act pursuant to s. 62.0.2 of the Act, and “therefore the within appeal is not required”. This remains an unresolved issue between the Parties, and on consent, is not before the Tribunal.

5Deliberations continued between the Parties following the launch of the appeal which resulted in a revised Conceptual Site Plan, Minutes of Settlement, and agreed upon revisions to the 2024 ZBA.

6Settlement materials were submitted to the Tribunal, and in accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, a Settlement Hearing on the terms of the Settlement Proposal (“Settlement”) was set.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

7The Settlement resolves the appeal launched by the Applicant and allows the Proposed Development to proceed by addressing the definition used for ‘residential suite’, minimum ground floor height, the supply of electricity required for designated electric vehicle parking spaces, clarification when calculating density, common amenity areas, required parking, and agreeing that a residential unit and an apartment are considered equivalent. The revisions also address setbacks from the highway, a reduced buffer along the north line of the Subject Lands, permissions for a driveway or parking space closer to the building wall, and the removal of Holding provisions (“2025 ZBA”).

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

8The issues that the Tribunal must address when adjudicating the 2025 ZBA are whether the proposed instrument:

a) Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”);

b) Conforms with the Official Plan and the Zoning By-Law for the City of Guelph; and,

c) Represents good planning and is in the public interest.

9The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and have regard to the information and materials that the City received concerning the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Act.

HEARING

10As evidence in the Hearing, two documents were marked as exhibits:

1. Affidavit of Service by Garrett Meades; and

2. Affidavit of Trevor Hawkins.

11At the request of the Applicant, and with the consent of the City, the Tribunal qualified Trevor Hawkins to provide uncontested planning evidence in support of the Settlement. Trevor Hawkins is a Registered Professional Planner in Ontario and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Planner Hawkins has been qualified as an expert witness by the Tribunal in the past and has been involved with this project directly since 2020.

12There was no dispute between the Parties regarding the 2025 ZBA and their regard and consistency with provincial planning policies and conformity with the Official Plan for the City. This is supported by Planner Hawkins, who opines that 2025 ZBA has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Official Plan, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. The Tribunal concurs with this analysis.

13As noted above, addressing issues with the 2024 ZBA was the primary focus of the Parties in reaching the Settlement.

14Planner Hawkins proffered that the modifications to the 2024 ZBA, summarized in paragraph [7] above, and specifically detailed in Attachment 1 below, address the site-specific issues identified by the Applicant, and allow Phase 2 to proceed.

15The Tribunal finds that the site-specific amendments in the 2025 ZBA represent good planning as it allows a planned student residence development to proceed, while also aligning with provincial and local housing priorities. The context-specific amendments related to density and parking are appropriate given the only permitted users of the residence are students.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law No. 2024-21009 of the City of Guelph is allowed in accordance with the oral Decision given at the Settlement Hearing and is amended as follows, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order:

That the City of Guelph’s Zoning By-Law 2023-20790 as amended, is hereby further amended by transferring the property legally described as Block K, Registered Plan 649 in the City of Guelph, (601 Scottsdale Drive) from the existing “Site specific Mixed Use Corridor with a Parking Adjustment Suffix and Holding Provisions” (MUC-2(PA)(H12)) Zone, to an amended “Site-specific Mixed-use Corridor with a Parking Adjustment Suffix” Zone, to be known as the MUC-2(PA) Zone is amended in accordance with the Zoning By-Law Amendments attached hereto as Attachment 1.

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, under Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of this Order, it shall be, and was, effective as of Monday, March 10, 2025, which is the date that the Tribunal received, considered, and determined the request for the Order in this proceeding.

18THE TRIBUNAL authorizes the Municipal Clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to the Zoning By-law for record-keeping purposes.

19AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to in the event that some matter should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM

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

1. By-law Number (2023)-20790, as amended, is hereby further amended by transferring property legally described as Block K, Registered Plan 649 City of Guelph, and municipally known as 601 Scottsdale Drive from the existing “Site-specific Mixed Use Corridor with a Parking Adjustment Suffix and Holding Provisions” (MUC-2(PA)(H12)) Zone, in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, to an amended “Site-specific Mixed-use Corridor with a Parking Adjustment Suffix” Zone, to be known as the MUC-2(PA) Zone

2. The H12 “Holding Provisions” are deleted for 601 Scottsdale Drive.

3. Section 18.9.2 of By-law Number (2023)-20790, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the text and replacing it in its entirety with the following:

18.9.2 MUC-2(PA)

601 Scottsdale Drive

As shown on Defined Area Map 17 and Defined Area Map 18 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

a) Permitted Uses

In addition to the permitted uses under Section 7.2, Table 7.1 of By-law Number (2023)-20790, as amended, the following additional uses shall be permitted:

• Apartment building (permitted on the first storey of a building)

• Residential Suites

For the purposes of this Zone, the following definition shall apply:

Residential Suites: means a building or part thereof containing five or more suites that are used to provide living accommodation where access to each suite is obtained through a common entrance or entrances from the street level and subsequently through a common hall or halls. Each suite shall contain bathroom facilities but does not have exclusive use of a kitchen.

b) Regulations

In accordance with Table 7.6, Table 7.7, Table 7.8, Table 7.9 and Table 5.3 of the By-law, with the following exceptions and additions:

i. Maximum Building Length

75 metres for buildings located within 15 metres of a street for the portion of the building adjacent to the street.

ii. Active Entrance

When a building(s) or portion thereof is within 15 metres of an existing and proposed arterial and/ or collector road, as identified in the City's Official Plan in force and effect on the effective date of this by-law, a minimum number of 1 active entrance for every 30 metres of street line shall be required for the portion of the building facing the street.

iii. Minimum First Storey Height

A minimum of 4.0 metres is required for the first storey height of the buildings.

iv. Minimum First Storey Transparency

40% of the surface area of the first storey of a building, up to 4.5m from the ground, shall be comprised of transparent windows and/or active entrances when a building is within 15 metres of an existing and proposed arterial and/or collector road, as identified in the City's Official Plan in force and effect on the effective date.

v. Parking Space Dimensions

Interior or exterior parking spaces must be a minimum width of 2.75 metres by a minimum length of 5.5 metres (excluding any obstructions).

vi. Electric Vehicle Parking

Despite Section 5.9(a), a minimum of 3% of the total required parking spaces for multi-unit buildings shall be provided as electric vehicle parking spaces.

Despite Section 5.9(b), a minimum of 50% of the total required parking spaces for multi-unit buildings shall be provided as designed electric vehicle spaces.

vii. Lot Line Definitions

For the purpose of this By-law, the boundary of the lot along Scottsdale Drive shall be considered as the front property line.

For the purpose of this By-law, the boundary along Highway 6 shall be defined as the rear property line.

For the purpose of this By-law, the boundary adjacent to Stone Road West shall be defined as the exterior property line.

viii. Maximum Residential Density

Despite Table 7.6.B, a maximum density of 300 units per hectare shall be permitted.

ix. Calculating Density and Parking

For the purpose of determining the number of units, a residential suite shall be considered equivalent to a dwelling unit.

x. Maximum Building Height

Despite Table 7.8.C, the maximum building height shall be 14 storeys.

xi. Distance Between Buildings

Despite Table 7.8, the provisions for maximum distance between buildings shall not apply.

xii. Angular Plane

Despite Table 7.9.B, the provisions concerning angular plane shall not apply.

xiii. Minimum Common Amenity Area

Despite Table 7.8, the minimum required common amenity area shall be 6.8 square metres per residential suite/dwelling unit.

xiv. Parking Rates

Despite Table 5.3 (2), the minimum required parking rate shall be 0.21 spaces per residential suite/dwelling unit, inclusive of visitor parking spaces.

xv. Bicycle Parking

Despite Table 5.7, the minimum required bicycle parking space rate shall be 0.57 spaces per residential suite/dwelling unit, for both short and long-term spaces combined and Section 5.8.1(b)(ii) shall not apply.

xvi. Maximum Exterior Side Yard Setback

Despite Table 7.7.A, the maximum exterior side yard setback shall be 17 metres for Stone Road West.

xvii. Minimum Buffer Strip

Despite Table 7.7.D, a minimum 1.6 metre wide buffer strip is required adjacent to the northerly interior side lot line.

xviii. Parking Location

Despite Section 5.2.2.(a), surface parking spaces shall be setback a minimum of 1.6 metres from the northerly interior side lot line.

Despite Section 5.2.2.(b), a surface driveway or surface parking area shall be setback a minimum of 2.1 metres from a building wall, entrance or any window of a habitable room, except for a driveway leading to structured parking, which shall be exempt from the setback requirement.

4. Schedule “A” of By-law Number (2023)-20790, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Defined Area Map 17 and deleting Defined Area Map 18 and adding a new Defined Area Map 17 and new Defined Area Map 18 attached hereto as Schedule “A”.

5. The City Clerk is directed to assigned this Tribunal-amended Zoning By-law a By-law number for administrative purposes in accordance with the City’s numbering conventions.