Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 23, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000462
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant:
2014707 Ontario Inc. (“Cook Homes”)
Appellant:
2738766 Ontario Limited, 2738777 Ontario Limited and 848866 Ontario Limited
Appellant:
2742707 Ontario Limited
Appellant:
642762 Ontario Inc. and others
Subject:
Zoning By-law
Description:
City of Guelph new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related site -specific updates to the Official Plan
Reference Number:
ZBA (2023)-20790
Property Address:
All lands within the City of Guelph
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000462
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000462
OLT Case Name:
Ferrovia Investments Inc. v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant:
Forum Asset Management
Appellant:
Paisley & Whitelaw Inc.
Appellant:
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description:
City of Guelph new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related site -specific updates to the Official Plan
Reference Number:
ZBA (2023)-20790
Property Address:
All lands within the City of Guelph
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000463
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000462
Heard:
May 5, 2025 by written hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Paisley & Whitelaw Inc.
Jennifer Meader
City of Guelph
Alex Ciccone
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to review the planning merits of the partial settlement of the Appeal by Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. (“Appellant”) pertaining to the updated and approved the City of Guelph (“City”) Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. (2023)-20790 (“CBZL”). The lands involved in this partial settlement are municipally known as 201 Elmira Road South, in the City (“Subject Lands”).
2The Tribunal notes that the original appeals date back to 2023 and there are 11 remaining appellants to the CZBL, including the Appellant that is the subject of this written hearing.
3The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on April 8, 2025, in which the Appellant and the City agreed that two of the issues of the Appellant’s appeal had been agreed upon and requested that these issues be heard by a written hearing. The Tribunal agreed with the request and scheduled a written hearing to occur on May 5, 2025.
4The two issues that have been agreed upon by the Parties are:
(1) a reduction of the minimum required parking stall dimensions for the parking structure to 2.75 metres (“m”) wide x 5.5 m deep; and
(2) that the regulations applied to the parking structure, other than the parking rate and the parking stall dimensions, be in accordance with the 1995 Zoning By-law.
5The Tribunal notes that the parking rate requirements listed in subsection (2) above are not apart of this Decision as the parking rate requirement was heard in a separate matter before the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS
6The Appellant filed the following documents with the Tribunal in support of settlement between the Parties and the Tribunal marked the documents as Exhibits to the hearing:
Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Trevor Hawkins dated May 2, 2025, consisting of 79 pages;
Exhibit 2 Appendix A – CBZL Modifications, consisting of six pages;
Exhibit 3 Appendix A – CBZL Modifications dated May 2, 2025, consisting of three pages.
7After a review of the Exhibits, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Hawkins to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to this matter.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
8In Mr. Hawkins’ affidavit, Mr. Hawkins gave a review of the Subject Lands and of the surrounding area. The Subject Lands are approximately 6.2 hectares in size and are located at the intersections of Elmira Road South, Paisley Road, and Whitelaw Road.
9The Subject Lands are currently being developed with three apartment buildings: one fronting Paisley Road (Building A) and two fronting Elmira Road (Buildings B and C). A multi-level parking structure fronting onto Whitelaw Road is also proposed as part of the development.
10Mr. Hawkins stated that all three buildings are constructed and either completely or partially occupied with a total of 381 residential units in the three buildings. The proposed Parking Structure along Whitelaw Road is Site Plan approved but requires minor revisions to alter the design (but not location) of the structure. The purpose of the Parking Structure is to provide parking for residents and visitors of the three buildings.
11In order to permit the parking structure, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that some modifications are required to the City’s 2023 CZBL. The proposed modifications would permit a minimum parking stall size in accordance with the 2023 ZBL, as listed above in paragraph 4 subsection (1) and permit the rest of the parking structure itself to be developed in accordance with the regulations in the 1995 ZBL.
12It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed revisions have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act. The proposed changes would permit a parking structure that will allow for the full occupancy of the three residential buildings. As such, the proposed changes as presented meet the criteria of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.
Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (“PPS”)
13Mr. Hawkins opined that the proposed settlement is consistent with the PPS, specifically with s. 2.2.1 and s. 2.3.1.1 of the PPS. Section 2.2.1 pertains to providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options to meet the projected needs of the regional market. The proposed parking structure will support the three existing buildings and will efficiently use the existing lands by providing a multi-level structure to support the three existing buildings. Section 2.3.1.1 states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and focused in strategic growth areas. Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the Subject Lands are located within a settlement area and the proposed parking structure is an essential component to the three existing buildings. As such, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed settlement is consistent with the PPS.
City of Guelph Official Plan (“COP”)
14It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed parking structure is permitted under section 5.11 of the COP. The parking structure would support the three existing buildings. The parking structure will help support the intensification of the Subject Lands as the Subject Lands are located within a Strategic Growth Area of the COP. It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed parking structure conforms to the COP.
City of Guelph Zoning By-laws (“1995 ZBL” and “CZBL”)
15Mr. Hawkins gave opinion that the 1995 ZBL required wider and longer individual parking stalls when compared to the current CZBL. the proposal before the Tribunal meets the minimum requirements of the CZBL in relation to the parking stall space dimensions. The parking stall space dimensions permitted in the CBZL allow for a more efficient use of the parking area allowing for a total of 461 parking spaces in the parking structure, while having a total parking structure that is smaller than was originally approved by the City. Mr. Hawkins opined that this is the reasoning for using the CBZL conditions pertaining to parking stall dimensions while using the 1995 ZBL for the rest of the parking structure requirements.
16Mr. Hawkins opined that the proposed parking structure meets the 1995 ZBL requirements pertaining to parking structure entrances. Even though there is one entrance on Whitelaw Road, there are other entrances located in proximity of the three existing residential buildings on the property itself. It is the intent that the parking structure is to be used exclusively by the residents and visitors of the three buildings.
17Mr. Hawkins continued and opined that the proposed parking structure before the Tribunal complies with the zoning regulations of the 1995 ZBL – except for the minimum parking stall size. Mr. Hawkins noted that the parking structure was previously approved under the 1995 ZBL. The parking structure complies with the CZBL concerning the minimum parking stall size. Mr. Hawkins opined that the site-specific regulations in the CZBL pertaining to the parking stall size are appropriate and should be allowed concerning the proposal before the Tribunal.
Overall Opinion
18It was Mr. Hawkins’ overall opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal is appropriate as it is similar in nature to the previously approved parking structure. The parking structure is smaller in size yet provides the amount of minimum parking required for the existing buildings. It was his professional opinion using the CZBL parking stall size requirements while allowing the rest of the parking structure to be regulated by the 1995 ZBL are appropriate and represent good land use planning. The proposal before the Tribunal should be approved as presented.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and evidence provided by Mr. Hawkins. The Tribunal notes that the City was in support of the written testimony provided by Mr. Hawkins.
20Based on Mr. Hawkins’ written affidavit and the materials submitted, the Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal, as presented, has regard for matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.
21The evidence of Mr. Hawkins has demonstrated to the Tribunal that the settlement proposal is found to be consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the COP, and conforms to both the 1995 ZBL and the CZBL.
22The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal should be approved in the form presented. The settlement proposal is appropriate for the Subject Lands and represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the proposed site-specific modifications are hereby approved as set out in “Appendix A” to this order.
24The Tribunal notes that this Decision and Order is strictly without prejudice with respect to the remainder of the Appellant’s existing appeals pertaining to the CZBL.
25The Tribunal may be spoken to if there are issues arising from the implementation of this Order, schedules permitting.
“S. deBoer”
S. DEBOER
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.