Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001187
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Southside Construction Management Ltd.
Subject: Consent
Description: To permit a lot severance
Reference Number: B.028/24
Property Address: 925 Southdale Road
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001187
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001187
OLT Case Name: Southside Construction Management Ltd. v London (City)
Heard: May 14, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Southside Construction Management Ltd. | A. Baroudi |
| City of London | A. Hovius C. McCreery |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON MAY 14, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Southside Construction Management Ltd. (“Appellant”) requested permission from the City of London (“City”) to divide the property known municipally as 925 Southdale Road (“Subject Lands”) into two parcels for the purpose of future commercial development. The severed lot will have an area of 0.77 hectares (“ha”) and the retained lot with an area of 4.71 ha. On November 8, 2024, the London Consent Authority granted provisional consent to the Appellant, subject to a list of 10 conditions (“Conditions”). The Appellant, while agreeing with the decision to grant the provisional consent, filed an Appeal pursuant to s.53(19) of the Planning Act, to appeal one of the proposed Conditions. A five-day hearing on the merits of this matter was scheduled with the Tribunal and before the hearing commenced, the Parties reached a settlement. The hearing of the merits was then converted into a hearing of the proposed settlement between the Parties.
2The Tribunal heard uncontested evidence from two of the Appellant’s experts. David Hannam (“Hannam”) was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning, and Jason Ross (“Ross”) was qualified to provide evidence as an engineering technologist. The Tribunal received and marked the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of David Hannam
Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Jason Ross
SUBJECT LANDS AND APPLICATION
3The Subject Lands have a total area of 5.5 ha, with frontage and vehicular access along Southdale Road West and Colonel Talbot Road. At present, the Subject Lands contain seven low-rise commercial/retail buildings with associated surface parking. The surrounding area contains residential development to the north, commercial uses and high-density residential to the east, low-medium density residential uses to the south, and agricultural uses southwest of the Subject Lands. The Subject Lands are zoned ‘Commercial Shopping Area 3 (CSA3)’ in the City’s Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (“ZBL Z.-1”), and the existing and proposed commercial usage for the severed lot is a contemplated use in accordance with the range of permitted uses in a CSA3 Zone.
4The Subject Lands are to be severed to create a new 0.77 ha lot with reciprocal access and servicing easements. The new lot will include an existing commercial building (bank), a future retail building, as well as communal areas for parking, access, and landscaping. The Appellant is the sole owner of the Subject Lands.
ISSUE
5The City Staff Report, prepared for the consideration of the London Consent Authority, recommended the approval of the Application subject to 10 Conditions. The condition under appeal is consent condition 7 (“Condition 7”), which states:
The severed and retained parcels must each have their own separate water services to avoid creation of a regulated drinking water system. Shared water servicing will not be permitted. The Owner shall provide a water servicing plan demonstrating new service alignment and a water brief addressing domestic demands, fire flows, and water quality to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6The Appellant took the position that it was appropriate for both the severed and retained lot to have a shared water service.
Planning Evidence
7Hannam provided uncontroverted land use planning evidence to the Tribunal. He opined that the severed lot was sized and configured to allow development, and that the proposed use to be constructed on the severed lot was contemplated by City policies. Further, Hannam opined that the Application supported the achievement of complete communities by appropriately and efficiently adding to the range and mix of land uses on underutilized lands within a settlement area, and that the proposal utilizes existing municipal water and sewage services. With respect to the City’s Official Plan, known as The London Plan, he opined that the amendment conformed as the amendment facilitates the provision of safe, clean drinking water to the existing and proposed uses, in conformity with policies 451_5 and 743. Hannam testified that the proposed commercial use was in accordance with the range of permitted uses in the CSA3 Zone and that ZBL Z.-1 did not contain a minimum lot regulation for the CSA3 Zone. He stated that he had read Exhibit 2 and relied on it for his opinion that the proposed amended version of Condition 7 was appropriate.
Water Servicing
8Ross was retained by the Appellant to undertake the Subject Lands’ servicing and grading design required to support the proposed building on the severed lot. Ross explained that the City has responsibility for the municipal water system that provides water to individual properties within the City. This municipal water system is regulated by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The issue in this matter is that the water servicing for one lot will be provided through the other lot. The City’s concern is that, as the Appellant does not own the adjacent property, it creates, in effect, a second regulated drinking system from the first property to the second, hence Condition 7, which is found at paragraph [5] above.
9Ross provided a high-level overview of the Subject Lands’ present water usage through its thirteen existing connections, and that modelling confirmed there was adequate capacity for the addition of one more service. He noted that there were no concerns from a contamination perspective and nothing to elevate the risk profile compared to other water users on the Subject Lands. As counsel for the City had no questions or comments with respect to the evidence of Ross, the Tribunal accepts that the additional water connection is reasonable and raises no concerns for the City.
Resolution
10The proposed resolution of this matter was a requirement that both properties would remain under common ownership and that this requirement would be registered on title. The amended version of Condition 7 (“Amended Condition 7”) is as follows:
Shared water servicing shall be permitted between the retained parcel and the severed parcel without premise isolation, subject to the Owner and the City entering into a Severance Agreement in the form attached as Appendix 1, which addresses ownership of the severed and retained parcels. The Owner shall provide a water servicing plan demonstrating new service alignment and a water brief addressing domestic demands, fire flows, and water quality, to the satisfaction of the City engineer.
11No other changes were made to the other Conditions. Hannam’s Affidavit includes a copy of the severance agreement, which is to be registered on title and permits the severed and retained parcels to have shared water servicing, providing that the Appellant remains the sole registered owner of both parcels. Hannam’s opinion was that Amended Condition 7 did not impact or change the London Consent Authority’s decision to approve the Application. The Application remains consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conforms to The London Plan, and maintains the general intent and purpose of ZBL Z.-1. The Application is not anticipated to impact the ability of the surrounding lands to function in their intended manner, and the conditions and amended condition were reasonable for the nature of the development proposed.
TRIBUNAL FINDINGS
12The Tribunal accepts the evidence of David Hannam and Jason Ross and finds that Amended Condition 7 is consistent with, conforms to, and is in keeping with the applicable policies and guidelines of the Province of Ontario, the official plan policies of the City of London, and are in keeping with the general intent of the City’s zoning by-law. The Tribunal finds that Amended Condition 7 meets the required legislative tests, represents good planning, is in the public interest, and therefore warrants approval.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, pursuant to s. 53(34) of the Planning Act, the Appeal is allowed, and the Conditions imposed by the City of London are amended as set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
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.
SCHEDULE 1