[55] The Tribunal would observe the following:
• The Subject Lands are ideally located for easy access to public transportation (with 335 m) and in close proximity to the Allen Expressway.
• The Subject Lands are located on a major road.
• The Subject Lands are well within the radius of a major transit station area and therefore appropriate for intensification.
• Four storey apartments are permitted uses in the City’s Official Plan for Neighbourhood’s designation.
• Since the 2016 Staff Report on the Korkmaz’s consent and minor variance applications, the Province has issued the PPS 2020 and also issued the Growth Plan 2020, both of which place a greater emphasis on optimizing the use of the existing land supply, better use of existing infrastructure, public service facilities and being transit supportive.
• In fact, the Growth Plan refers to this as “an intensification first” approach to development and city building.
• No expert evidence of any nature or kind was provided by the Appellant in support of the appeal, to contest the expert evidence in the materials of the Applicant and the City, and to contest the decision of City Council.
[56] While the Appellant seeks additional time to retain experts in the field of land use planning and in transportation to provide expert evidence in support of its position, the Tribunal finds that the Community Consultation Meeting was held in 2020, that the City Council adopted the impugned ZBA in February 2022, and there has been ample time for the Appellant to make such inquiries and make such retainers.
[57] The Tribunal has examined the grounds for the appeal and finds that there is no substantive basis by which any challenge of inconsistency with the PPS is advanced, there is no substantive basis for any lack of conformity with the Growth Plan to be advanced, and there is no substantive basis for any lack of conformity with the Official Plan of the City to be advanced.
[58] That finding alone is fatal to the Applicant’s appeal, and it is not necessary to consider whether the appeal is also frivolous and vexatious.
[59] Notwithstanding that finding, the Tribunal also finds pursuant to s. 19.1(c) of the OLTA that there is no reasonable prospect for success of this appeal as the development proposal is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan as being a modest form of intensification in close proximity to public transit, conforms to the City’s Official Plan as a 4 storey apartment building is a permitted use in the Neighbourhoods designation, and such an application does not have to comply with any existing zoning regulation. It is the zoning that must implement the Official Plan.
[60] On these grounds, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should be dismissed and that it is not an appeal that is worthy of the adjudicative process.
[61] Therefore the Tribunal will allow the Motion, and grant the request to relief and hereby dismisses the appeal without a further hearing.
www.linkedin.com
