Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000381

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: MacDonald Rose Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit development of 11 freehold townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: Z-1613.65

Property Address: 358 Reynolds Street

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000381

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000381

OLT Case Name: MacDonald Rose Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: MacDonald Rose Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal

Description: To permit development of 11 freehold townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: 24T-23003/1613

Property Address: 358 Reynolds Street

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000382

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000381

Heard: January 13, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

MacDonald Rose Inc. ("Appellant")

Russell Cheeseman Stephanie Fleming

Town of Oakville ("Town")

Nadia Chandra

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON JANUARY 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was a Hearing to consider a settlement proposal (“Proposal”) regarding the Appellant’s appeals of a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) and of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together, the “Applications”).

2The purpose of the Applications was to facilitate the development of 11 (“eleven”) townhouse dwelling units with individual accesses onto MacDonald Road and Reynolds Street on lands municipally known as 358 Reynolds Street (“Subject Lands” / “Site”) in the Town.

3Following the Proposal, a draft DPS with Draft Plan Conditions, and a draft ZBA were provided.

4Paul Lowes, a registered Professional Planner, swore an Affidavit on January 9, 2025 on behalf of the Appellant in support of the Proposal. Mr. Lowes was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1 and the Joint Document Book was marked as Exhibit 2.

5The Tribunal, having reviewed the documents, the Proposal, and the affirmed testimony of Mr. Lowes, allows the appeals for the reasons set out below.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

6Mr. Lowes gave an overview of the Applications and the legislative and policy framework in support of the Proposal. He addressed the Participant, Dan Prosser’s concerns relating to setback, height, density, privacy, shadowing, pedestrian sidewalk, tree preservation, heritage conservation, building design, and compatibility issues. He informed the Tribunal that the Appellant’s settlement proposal had taken into consideration each area of concern, and that there were no adverse impacts on the neighbourhood properties.

7The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), the Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”), and the Town Official Plan (“OP”). Mr. Lowes opined that the Proposal, the DPS, the Draft Plan Conditions, and the ZBA represent good land use planning. He recommended approval of the DPS and ZBA.

AREA CONTEXT

8The Subject Lands are currently underutilized with a vacant three-and-a-half -storey medical office building featuring a large rear yard parking lot. The Site is approximately 0.28 hectares (0.69 acres) located at the southwest corner of Reynolds Street and MacDonald Road.

9The Site is within the Trafalgar Road Heritage Conservation District Plan (TRHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 2023 prepared by Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc. notes that the existing building on the subject site has no heritage value and can be demolished.

10North of the Site (across MacDonald Road) are two-storey single-detached homes fronting onto MacDonald Road. A heritage-designated building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act is also located north of the Site at the northwest corner of Reynolds Street and MacDonald Road (293 MacDonald Road).

11East of the Site (across Reynolds Street) is a future residential area consisting of detached and townhouse dwellings as part of the redevelopment of the former Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital Lands redevelopment. The Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital Lands redevelopment also contains the newly constructed Oakville-Trafalgar Community Centre, a neighbourhood park, an existing above-ground parking garage, a future seniors housing complex and a future civic square.

12South of the Site is a one-and-one-half-storey (“1½-storey”) single detached home fronting onto Reynolds Street as well as a two-storey single-detached dwelling fronting onto Trafalgar Road.

13West of the Site is a two-storey single-detached dwelling, and further west are two other two-storey dwellings before arriving at Trafalgar Road.

14The Site is within walking distance to one of the bus stops located along the local Linbrook route (Oakville Transit Route 11). The stop is located southwest of Reynolds Street and MacDonald Road, just north of the future residential area, less than 100 metres from the Site. Local bus route 11 provides daily service between Clarkson GO in Mississauga to Oakville GO.

15A previous appeal for an OPA and ZBA application on the Site was approved at the Tribunal on July 19, 2022 to permit a 3-storey residential condominium building with 14 residential units and underground parking (OLT Case No. OLT-22-002007).

16The OPA re-designated the Site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and the ZBA re-zoned the Site from Residential Low 5 (RL5-0) to Residential Medium 4 (RM4) with special provisions for interior side yard, height and balcony projection.

DPS and ZBA

17The original DPS and ZBA applications in this appeal were submitted on December 11, 2023 proposing 11 street townhouses within two blocks (Block 1: five units; Block 2: six units) fronting on MacDonald Road and Reynolds Street.

18These applications were refused by the Town Council on March 4, 2024 and the Appellant appealed the refusal.

THE REVISED PROPOSAL

19The proposed DPS consists of three blocks: two townhouse blocks and a road-widening block.

20The proposed development site plan comprises eleven 3-storey street townhouse units distributed into two development blocks (one building on each block), rear yard decks, walk-out basements, two-car garages and driveway access.

21This revised development shows 11 townhouse units, each with three bedrooms; 10 townhouses front onto MacDonald Road while one unit fronts Reynolds Street.

22The maximum height of the proposed development is 13.6 metres and a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.4 metres is provided. The proposed minimum rear yard setback is 8.6 metres.

23A minimum of three parking spaces are provided for each unit. A total of 34 vehicular parking spaces will be provided.

24The ZBA proposes to rezone the Subject Lands from Residential Medium Density with Special Provision 416 (RM4-SP416) to Residential Medium 1 with Special Provisions (RM1-XX) to permit the proposed townhouse built form.

25Special provisions are contained in the By-law for front yard, flankage yard, interior side yard, rear yard, height, porch encroachments, uncovered platform encroachments, and balcony projections, among others, to facilitate the 3-storey townhouse development.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

26The Tribunal accepts Mr. Lowes’ uncontested opinion evidence. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has proper regard for the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) – in particular, s. 2(h) on the orderly development of communities, s. 2(p) on the appropriate location of growth and development, and s. 2(r) on the promotion of built-form that is well-designed and encourages a sense of place.

27Further, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019.

28The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Lowes that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS policies and conforms to the RHOP and the OP.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

29The Proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 2.2.1 of the PPS that speak to planning authorities being required to provide for a range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the projected needs of current and future residents.

30Section 2.2.1.c of the PPS encourages and promotes new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities which support the use of active transportation networks.

31The Tribunal finds that the proposed development makes efficient use of the unoccupied and underutilized parcel with existing infrastructure. It introduces new townhouse built-form to an existing built-up area, which Site is close to the Oakville Transit Linbrook route stop. The Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

Region of Halton Official Plan 2022

32The Site is within the Urban Area in the RHOP. Section 72.1 states that the objectives of the Urban Area include: to support growth that is compact and which is supportive of transit and active transportation to create complete communities, and to ensure growth is logical and sustainable.

33The Region supports residential intensification and redevelopment within urban areas and conversion of existing structures provided the existing physical character can be maintained (s. 86.11).

34The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is consistent with the RHOP objectives through the residential redevelopment of this underutilized Site. The built-form design is compact, the Site is close to a transit network, and the Proposal will create a complete community in the neighbourhood. The proposed development is compatible with the existing built-form, height, and existing character of the area, and makes efficient use of existing infrastructure.

Town Official Plan 2009 (OP)

35The OP provides policies which detail its goals and objectives on the management of physical change within the Town.

36The Subject Lands are designated Medium Density Residential as a result of the Tribunal’s July 2022 decision, but Schedule G – Southeast Land Use in the OP has not been updated to reflect the recent decision (Low Density Residential is still shown).

37Section 11 preamble of the OP establishes the following land use objectives which apply to all Residential Areas:

a) maintain, protect and enhance the character of existing Residential Areas;

b) encourage an appropriate mix of housing types, densities, design and tenure throughout the Town;

c) promote housing initiatives to facilitate revitalization, compact urban form and an increased variety of housing alternatives;

d) promote innovative housing types and forms to ensure accessible, affordable, adequate and appropriate housing for all socio-economic groups;

38The Tribunal finds that the Proposal meets these objectives by complementing the existing character and built form of the adjacent residential neighbourhood by providing an increase to the housing stock in a compact built form while providing an appropriate separation between the existing single-detached home to the west and the proposed townhouse development.

39The Proposal rezones the subject lands from RM4-SP416 to Residential Medium 1 (RM1) Zone with special provisions, which is compatible with the existing low-density character of the Old Oakville community.

40Section 11.1.9 of the OP 2009 sets out a list of criteria for development within stable residential communities, with the intent to maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character.

41The Tribunal finds that the proposal of 11 townhouse dwelling units represents gentle intensification on underutilized land. The development’s density of 38.9 units per hectare is within the range permitted for the Medium Density Residential designation.

42The units’ massing and height are designed to complement the existing heritage district neighbourhood context with appropriate separations between the development and the surrounding neighbourhood. The 3-storey townhouse units are lower in height than the current By-law permission (OP s.11.1.9).

43The Proposal’s design takes into consideration the existing adjacent 2-storey land use to the west, by providing appropriate setbacks, roof height and dormer/gable design, and a transition in height to the property as well as to other nearby properties.

44The Site’s office building has no heritage value and can be demolished. The proposed development design will not negatively impact the heritage character of the TRHCD and is in general compliance with the guidelines of the TRHCD.

45The Tribunal finds that the townhouse residential development is generally compatible within a low-rise residential neighbourhood context. It respects and maintains the existing neighbourhood character with no adverse impacts. The Proposal thus conforms to the OP.

46The Tribunal finds that the DPS has regard for the relevant criteria as set out in s.51(24) of the Act. The proposed subdivision development is a matter of Provincial interest as it will facilitate the development of additional housing through the intensification of an underutilized site serviced by existing municipal infrastructure and access transit and community services and facilities.

47The Draft Plan Conditions to be imposed are reasonable pursuant to s.51(25) of the Act.

Town Zoning By-law No.2014-014

48The Site is zoned RM4-SP416 in the ZBL. The Proposal will rezone the Site to Residential Medium 1 (RM1) to permit the development.

49Mr. Lowes opined that the proposed zoning regulations implement the OP and are appropriate for the proposed development.

CONCLUSION

50The Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal, the DPS with the Draft Plan Conditions, and the ZBA represent good planning, have regard for the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the RHOP and the OP.

51The Tribunal grants the appeals in part, and approves the DPS, Draft Plan Conditions and the ZBA.

ORDER

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed in part, and that:

1. the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the Municipal clerk to assign a number to this By-law for record-keeping purposes;

2. the Draft Plan shown on the plan prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. dated November 13, 2023 comprising 358 Reynolds Street is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order; and

3. pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Oakville shall have the authority to clear the Conditions of Draft Plan approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act.

50In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of Draft Plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the Draft Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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 2