Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-072 LPAT Order of the Board The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: National Homes (Prestonvale) Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2017- 0032- Refusal or neglect of Municipality of Clarington to make a decision Existing Zoning: Agricultural (A) Proposed Zoning: Residential Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit the rezoning of registered Plan No. 40R24865 to allow residential uses. Property Address/Description: Part of Lot 33, Concession 2 Municipality: Town of Clarington Municipality File No.: ZBA 2017-0032 OMB Case No.: PL180334 OMB File No.: PL180334 OMB Case Name: National Homes (Prestonvale) Inc. v. Clarington (Municipality) APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Municipality of Clarington R. Maciver National Homes (Prestonvale) Inc. C. Barnett Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2019 CASE NO(S).: PL180334 Heard: July 29, 2019 in Bowmanville, Ontario 2 PL180334 DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD [1] This is the decision for the hearing of an appeal by National Homes (Prestonvale) Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding the failure of the Municipality of Clarington (“Municipality”) to make a decision for an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to permit a residential development on a property at Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, Clarington. [2] At the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the appeal. Mr. Barnett told the Tribunal that the concerns of Hugh Neill, a participant in the proceeding, had been fully satisfied, and that the concerns of another participant, Ed Cook, were in the process of being settled. He also noted that the other participant, Dan Burgess was not in attendance. [3] The Tribunal heard evidence in support of the settlement from Ryan Guetter, Senior Vice-President of Weston Consulting. Mr. Guetter is a Registered Professional Planner with approximately 16 years of experience. He was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in land use planning. [4] The Tribunal heard that the subject property consists of a parcel approximately 5.158 hectares (“ha.”) in size, located at the northeast corner of Bloor Street and Prestonvale Road. The area is characterized largely by single detached dwellings and vacant lands. Two dwellings are located on the north side of Bloor Street which belong to participants in the appeal. There are some multiple unit buildings further to the west. [5] Mr. Guetter indicated that a portion of Robinson Creek occupies the eastern part of the property and there is a grade change moving eastward associated with the creek valley. He stated that the creek valley area will be retained and that it will be dedicated to a public authority. [6] The Tribunal heard that a draft plan of subdivision has been prepared for the 3 PL180334 property which is not before the Tribunal. The only matter before the Tribunal is the Zoning By-law Amendment. [7] The Tribunal heard that the proposal has been through a number of iterations. The proposal that forms the basis of the settlement includes of a total of 112 townhouse units consisting of 20 two-storey units, 54 three-storey units and 38 stacked townhouses (Exhibit 2, Tab 11). Mr. Guetter indicated that the proposed townhouse design will fit with the existing character of the area. [8] Mr. Guetter’s evidence was that Bloor Street is a Regional Corridor which is intended to accommodate higher order uses. He stated that target densities for Regional Corridors in the Region of Durham Official Plan are 60 units per ha . The Clarington Official Plan provides a higher density target of 85 units/ha . [9] Mr. Guetter indicated that planning for the proposal has been sensitive to the area of single family homes to the west. The site plan has been modified to respond to concerns raised through the planning process. Mr. Guetter stated that the proposal now includes a 15 metres (“m”) buffer from the Robinson Creek valley and provides for a viewshed from Cole Avenue to the valley. [10] Mr. Guetter noted that the proposal provides dwelling units with a variety of sizes. The proposal maintains approximately 33% to 34% landscaped open space and provides common amenity space. Mr. Guetter indicated that the overall density for the proposal is approximately 52 units/ha. [11] Mr. Guetter stated that the draft plan of subdivision was being processed and comments from agencies were being received. He expected the draft plan to be considered by municipal Council in the fall of 2019. [12] Mr. Guetter referred to the Minutes of Settlement (Exhibit 1) and he stated that the proposed ZBA is attached. 4 PL180334 [13] Mr. Guetter provided his planning opinion regarding the ZBA. He stated that the ZBA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”). He indicated that the PPS seeks to ensure efficient growth and intensification and to provide for a range and mix of residential uses. Mr. Guetter stated that the subject lands are within a settlement area. The proposed ZBA provides for a compact form of development and facilitates intensification. [14] Mr. Guetter’s opinion was that the ZBA conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). He referred to s. 2.2.1.4 (c) and (e) which indicate that the policies of the Growth Plan provide for a range and mix of housing and a more compact built form (Exhibit 2, Tab 24, p. 200). His opinion was that the proposed ZBA complies with these policies and with those that promote intensification. He also indicated that the proposal conforms to Growth Plan policies related to transit and moving people. [15] With regard to the Regional Official Plan, Mr. Guetter stated that the lands are identified as Living Area and as Regional Corridor. He indicated that the Regional Official Plan provides direction to municipal official plans which provide more detail. Mr. Guetter referred to s. 8A2.9 which indicates that a long-term target of 60 units/ha and a density of 2.5 applies to Regional Corridors (Exhibit 2, Tab 25, p.. 292). Mr. Guetter’s opinion was that the proposal conforms with this policy and with the Regional Official Plan. [16] Mr. Guetter indicated that the subject property is designated as Urban Residential, Regional Corridor and Environmental Protection in the Clarington Official Plan (“Official Plan”). He referred to the policies for protecting the natural environment in s. 3 of the Plan (Exhibit 2, Tab 26, p. 336). He indicated that an environmental impact statement had been prepared by Niblett Environmental to address these policies. Mr. Guetter stated that the area to be conveyed to a public authority contains natural heritage features, but the proposed 15 m buffer sets an appropriate development limit 5 PL180334 and protects the features. He indicated that the proposal will result in some tree removal, but compensation will be provided. It was his opinion that the proposal conforms with the natural heritage policies of the Clarington’s Official Plan (“OP”). [17] Mr. Guetter referred to s. 4 of the Official Plan which sets out the municipal structure. The Tribunal heard that the portion of the property within the Regional Corridor will have a density of approximately 85 units/ha as required in s. 4.3.9. The target densities in the Official Plan for the remainder of the site are lower. Mr. Guetter indicated that the proposal conforms to the density requirements in the Official Plan and conforms with s. 4. [18] Regarding the Built Form policies in s. 5.4, Mr. Guetter stated that the proposal is sensitive to the existing context (Exhibit 2, Tab 26, p. 369). It will provide for a strong street presence on the Regional Corridor and represent a planned function of higher order. He maintained that the proposal complies with these policies. [19] Mr. Guetter’s opinion was that the proposal complies with the Clarington’s OP transportation policies in s. 19 and the Stormwater Management policies in s. 20. [20] Mr. Guetter’s planning opinion was that the ZBA complies with the Clarington Official Plan. [21] Mr. Guetter stated that the current zoning for the property is Agricultural in Zoning By-law No. 84-63 and the proposed Zoning is R 3, Residential. (Exhibit 2, Tab 27). He referred to the proposed By-law attached to the Minutes of Settlement. He noted that the ZBA has been structured as an exception to the provisions of Zoning By- law No. 84-63. [22] Mr. Guetter indicated that an Environmental Protection zone will be placed on the portion of the property containing natural heritage features. He also noted that a Holding Zone will be placed on the proposed residential portion of the property which can be 6 PL180334 removed after the plan of subdivision and the site plan are approved. [23] Mr. Guetter addressed concerns that had been raised by the participants. He indicated that trees will be retained along Mr. Cook’s property boundary as illustrated in Exhibit 4. An existing hedgerow must be removed but it will be replaced by a wooden privacy fence and a 10 feet high cedar hedge. Mr. Guetter’s opinion was that the participants’ concerns were being satisfactorily addressed. [24] Mr. Guetter’s opinion was that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan. He recommended that it be approved. [25] The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence. The expert planning opinion provided by Mr. Guetter is uncontested. The Tribunal accepts and agrees with Mr. Guetter’s opinion. The evidence has demonstrated that the property is suitable for the proposed use and that the relevant provisions of the Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan have been fulfilled. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepts the submissions of the parties that the concerns of the participants have either been addressed or are in the process of being addressed. [26] Based upon the evidence the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and conforms to the Regional Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan. [27] In consideration of the above, the Tribunal will allow the appeal in part and approve the By-law. The appropriate order is provided below. ORDER [28] The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed in part and Municipality of Clarington Zoning By-law No. 84-63 is amended as set out in Attachment 1. 7 PL180334 “C. Conti” C. CONTI VICE-CHAIR If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Scke^'fi'Corporation of the Municipality ofClaringtonBy-law Number 2019-_being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law forthe Corporation of the Municipality ofClaringtonWhereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems itadvisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality ofClarington for ZBA 2017-0032;Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality ofClarington enacts as follows:1. "Section 14.6 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS - URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE THREE(R3) ZONE" is hereby amended adding a new "Urban Residential Exception (R3-58) Zone" as follows:14.6.58 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R3-58) ZONENotwithstanding Sections 3,1,14.1,14.2,14.3 and 14.4, on those lands zoned"R3-58" on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used for Link TownhouseDwellings and Stacked Townhouse Dwellings subject to the following zoneprovisions:a. Density (minimum) 40 units per hectare(maximum) 52 units per hectareb. Lot coverage (maximum) 50%c. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 30%d. Private Street Width (minimum) 6.5 metrese. Outdoor Amenity Space (minimum) 4.0 square metres per unitf. No portion of any Stacked Townhouse Dwelling shall be located at adistance that exceeds 100 metres measured from the streetline adjacentto Bloor Street.g. The following setback regulations apply to each dwelling unit (minimum):i) Yard setbacks to a Public Street, Private Street or Private Sidewalka) Garage , 6 metres b) Dwelling 4 metresc) Porch or Balcony 2 metresJi) Interior Side Yard Separation between Link or Stacked TownhouseDwellings 3.0 metres, nil wherea building has a commonwall with any buildingon an adjacent lotin the same zoneiii) Rear Yard Setback for Link TownhouseDwellings 6 metres,iv) Exterior Side Yard Setback to a Private Street 3.5 metresv) Exterior Side Yard Setback to a Private Sidewalkor Parking Space 2 metresvi) Building Height (maximum)a) LinkTownhouse Dwelling 12 metresb) Stacked Townhouse Dwelling 1 3.5 metresh. . Notwithstanding 14.6.58 g. i) b) above, a projection of the stacked-townhouse dwelling, at the second storey or higher may encroach up to1.5 metres into the required yard setback where an outdoor parking spaceis provided at grade directly below,i. An unenclosed-and uncovered deck with a minimum height of 2.5 metresand attached to a link townhouse dwelling may encroach in the requiredrear yard a maximum of 1.5 metres provided the outdoor parking space Isprovided at grade.j. Where a link townhouse dwelling has a rear yard setback of 6 metres orgreater, accessory buildings or structures are permitted provided the totalfloor area does not exceed 10% of the area of the lot or parcel of tied land.k. An accessory building or structure functioning as a condominium utilitybuilding may have a total floor area of 60 square metres and shall have aminimum setback of 1.2 metres from a parking space, sidewalk, or privatestreet and 4 metres from a public street.1. The provisions of Section 3.1 g. (iv) continue to apply, except where theyare in conflict with the yard requirements in this zone."2. Schedule '3' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changingthe zone designation from:"Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-58) Zone"and"Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Environmental Protection (EP) Zone"as illustrated on the attached Schedule 'A' hereto. ,3. Special Provisions for Removal of the (H) Holding SymbolIn addition to the general provisions of the Official Plan with respect to the removalof the (H) Holding symbol, Council shall only enact a by-law to remove the (H)Holding Symbol from the R3-58 Zone once the following provisions have beensatisfied:a) Stormwater outlet location and design prepared by a qualified Engineer,Environmental Consultant and related disciplines to the satisfaction of theDirector of Engineering Services, the Director of Planning Services and theCentral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority;b) Tree removals justification and compensation plan prepared by a qualifiedEnvironmental Consultant, Arborist and Landscape Architect to thesatisfaction Director of Engineering Services, the Director of PlanningServices and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority;c) Final subdivision approval for the purposes of creating blocks for residentialdevelopment, and the conveyance of Open Space lands to the Municipality ofClarington; and,d) Approval of site plan drawings and execution of a site plan agreement.4. Schedule 'A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to theprovisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.By-Law passed in open session this _ day of _, 20,Adrian Foster, MayorC. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk This Is Schedule "A" to By-law 2018- , passed thts day of.2019A.D.BLOOR STREETAdrian Fo*ter, MayorZoning Changs From 'A' To *(H)R3-58'Zoning Change From 'A' To 'EP'Courllce < ZBA 2017.0032 • Schedule 4^AC, Atino GlconKW, Municipal &ofk