Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario ISSUE DATE: January 16, 2017 CASE NO(S).: PL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Appellant: Subject: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Action Sandy Hill Martin Laplante Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA No. 156 City of Ottawa PL PL Laplante v. Ottawa (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Action Sandy Hill Appellant: Martin Laplante Subject: By-law No Municipality: City of Ottawa OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: PL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Action Sandy Hill Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 166 Municipality: City of Ottawa OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Action Sandy Hill v. Ottawa (City)

2 2 PL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Referred by: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Richcraft Homes Ltd. Site Plan 538, 544, 560 Rideau Street & 501 Besserer Street City of Ottawa Richcraft Homes Ltd. v. Ottawa (City) Heard: November 21, 22 and 23, 2016 in Ottawa, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties City of Ottawa Richcraft Homes Ltd. Action Sandy Hill Counsel Tim Marc Alan K. Cohen Samantha Montreuil Joshua Moon Martin Laplante DECISION DELIVERED BY R. G. M. MAKUCH AND MICHEL BELLEMARE AND ORDER OF THE BOARD [1] Official Plan Amendment No. 156 ( OPA 156 )and By-law No were adopted and enacted respectively by City of Ottawa ( City ) Council to permit the development of a 14 storey mixed-use building with an additional two towers of seven and three and a half storeys in height. [2] Appeals were filed by Action Sandy Hill ( ASH ) and Martin Laplante on the grounds that these enactments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement

3 3 PL ( PPS ) and were not in conformity with the City s official plan or the secondary plan for the area. They allege that Zoning By-law No will permit a building whose height, scale and mass will not be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and does not represent good planning. (PL150947) [3] Mr. Laplante withdrew his appeal at the commencement of the hearing. [4] Official Plan Amendment No. 166 ( OPA 166 ) was adopted by City Council to allow for the implementation of new land use and urban design components for the Uptown Rideau Street Community Design Plan ( URCDP ). [5] Appeals were filed by ASH and by Trinity Development Group Inc. ( Trinity ). () [6] The Trinity appeal has since been withdrawn. [7] The ASH appeal is on the grounds that s. 17 of the Planning Act ( Act ) has not been met due to lack of public consultation and lack of Council oversight since Council only considered the draft form of the plan. [8] Richcraft Homes Ltd. ( Richcraft ) has also appealed pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act against the City Council s refusal/neglect to render a decision within the prescribed time limits under the Act. Richcraft proposes to develop buildings having 14, seven and three and one half storeys on its lands known municipally as 538, 544 and 560 Rideau Street as well as 501 Besserer Street ( subject property ). () [9] The Board will adjourn Richcraft s appeal sine die at the request of counsel, who has undertaken to advise the Board within three months from the date of this decision as to the status of this matter.

4 4 PL [10] The evidence in support of the appeals consists of the testimony of Michel Fromojvic, the professional land use planning consultant retained by the Appellant, ASH, and that of Chad Rollins, President of ASH. [11] The evidence in opposition to the appeals consists of the testimony of Miguel Tremblay and Enzo Corazza, the land use planning consultant, and architect/urban designer respectively retained by Richcraft. The Board also heard the testimony of Matthew Ippersiel, Erin O Connell and Sally Coutts, who are employed by the City. These individuals were responsible for the processing of these applications and providing advice to Council. Mr. Ippersiel and Ms. O Connell are land use planners while Ms. Coutts, is a heritage planner. [12] The Board has carefully considered all of the evidence as well as the submissions of counsel and finds that the proposed development represents appropriate land use planning and should be approved. [13] The Board will first deal with the appeal of OPA 156, which was a site specific amendment respecting the Richcraft lands and has become unnecessary with the adoption of OPA 166, which covers the Richcraft lands as well as a wider area. The Board will allow the appeal and repeal this amendment in accordance with the requests by counsel for the parties. [14] The Board is satisfied that OPA 166 is consistent with the PPS, is in conformity with the City s parent official plan, represents appropriate land use planning and is in the public interest. [15] It was acknowledged by all witnesses in this hearing that the subject site is in need of re-development for the benefit of the community. ASH and its witnesses argue that nine storeys are more appropriate while the City and Richcraft maintain that the proposed development is appropriate.

5 5 PL [16] The Board prefers the opinion evidence of Mr. Ippersiel, Ms. O Connell and Ms. Coutts over that of Mr. Fromojvic. While there is no dispute as to Mr. Fromojvic s qualifications as a theoretical/academic planner, his lack of experience with the practical side of land use planning became quite evident during his cross-examination by counsel for the City and Richcraft. Cross-examination revealed that he was not very familiar with the City s parent official plan and had not carried out an analysis of the relevant policies as these applied to the issues before the Board on these appeals as he felt that there was no rationale put before council when it adopted OPA 166. Notwithstanding that he was qualified by the Board as capable of providing professional opinion evidence, Mr. Fromojvic was evasive and refused to answer proper hypothetical questions put to him while under cross-examination by counsel. His opinions were based largely on academic theory and he was unable to provide the Board with any evidence of any unacceptable undue adverse impacts to be caused by the proposed development. His repeated insistence that there was no planning rationale to support Council s decision to adopt OPA 166 and enact Zoning By-law No is just simply not sufficient for the Board to allow the appeals. He had an obligation as a planner to provide the Board with some analysis of the planning documents. His testimony was not useful to the Board in its deliberation of the issues before it. [17] Mr. Ippersiel, Ms. O Connell and Ms. Coutts on the other hand provided the Board with a detailed analysis of the applicable policies and maintained their land use planning opinions under cross-examination by counsel for ASH. In fact, crossexamination on many of the issues, served to strengthen their opinions. [18] Mr. Ippersiel provided the Board with his analysis of the four character areas within the URCDP area as well as an analysis of individual parcels within this area. He described the subject lands as largely consisting of a gravel parking lot surrounded by other parking lots as well as some residential buildings on the north side of Besserer Street. He described this particular area as a gap in the streetscape and having a lack of continuity. He referred to a previous approval by this Board in 2004 for a nine-storey

6 6 PL building on the 560 Rideau Street portion of the site currently before this panel of the Board. It is noted that 538, 544 Rideau Street and 501 Besserer Street were acquired by Richcraft following the Board s 2004 decision. [19] Mr. Ippersiel was of the view that the site merited special attention and that it has remained undeveloped despite the 2004 approval by this Board for a nine-storey building in [20] City Council, following the recommendation of the Planning Department, determined that the subject site was appropriate for density redistribution permitting up to 14 storeys on part of the site. This density re-distribution permission would be subject to the provision of a privately owned publicly accessible space (POPS) on the site, which extends to the intersection of Rideau and Cobourg Streets. Mr. Ippersiel and Ms. O Connell both were of the opinion that such a space having a minimum of 200 square metres on the site would be of some benefit to the community. Ms. O Connell noted that the section of Cobourg Street adjacent to the subject lands is not a through street for vehicular traffic, and therefore an opportunity to improve cycling priority. She also noted that there is already heavy pedestrian use along Rideau Street and that this was likely to increase in the future. Rideau Street is a transit priority street with significant pedestrian traffic. [21] Ms. O Connell noted that the zoning for the property directly across Rideau Street currently allows for height of up to nine storeys and that this could increase in the future. She also was of the opinion that the part of the site at 501 Besserer Street, which is proposed for three and one half storeys lines up directly with the proposed 14- storey tower and as such would assist in providing a transition from the 14 storeys and seven storeys to the low rise development along Besserer Street. There are no issues with respect to shadowing given that the subject property is to the north of the Sandy Hill community. Ms. O Connell summarized that the proposal constitutes good land use planning and is in the public interest.

7 7 PL [22] The evidence of Mr. Corazza, the architect/urban designer as to the appropriateness of the design was un-contradicted. He opined that the proposed building met all of the criteria set out in the official plan and design guidelines. [23] The Appellant has simply not met the onus it has on such an appeal to demonstrate that the City Council was wrong to approve the planning documents under appeal. It is noted that the Board shall pursuant to s. 2.1 of the Act has regard to the decision of Council and any supporting documentation and materials that the council had before it in making its decision. In this case, City council had a wealth of documents before it, including a number of reports from its planning department recommending approval of the planning documents under appeal. This documentation made out a compelling case for approval and adoption of OPA 166 and By-law No [24] The Board is also satisfied based on the un-contradicted evidence of Ms. Coutts that the heritage issues have been addressed by the planning documents and that there will not be any undue adverse impacts on the heritage conservation district to the southeast of the site. The additional five storeys will not have any significant additional adverse impacts on the heritage district than what could be caused by the existing permission for nine storeys. ORDER [25] The Board orders that accordingly, the appeal against the adoption of OPA 156 is allowed and OPA 156 is hereby repealed. [26] The appeal against OPA 166 is dismissed and OPA 166 is hereby approved.

8 8 PL [27] The appeal against the enactment of Zoning By-law No is allowed in part to allow the Board to amend the By-law in accordance with Attachment 1 hereto (Exhibits 4 and 5). The appeal is otherwise dismissed. R.G.M. Makuch R.G.M. MAKUCH MEMBER Michel Bellemare MICHEL BELLEMARE MEMBER If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit to view the attachment in PDF format. Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: Telephone: Toll Free:

9 ATTACHMENT 1

10

11

12