The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board in PL050845 reflected a settlement by the parties to address compatibility issues on Parts 1 and 2 12R-23594. No planning rationale has been submitted specifically to reconsider the issue of having neighbourhood commercial uses on Parts 1 & 2, 12R-23594, because the neighbourhood is still predominantly residential as was the case in 2008. As a matter of fact, the PPS and OPA have been amended since 2008 to encourage additional residential units and increase in housing options.

There are no OP or PPS amendments that I am aware of, since the 2008 OMB decision that would impact OMB decision PL050845 with respect to keeping Parts 1 & 2 12R-23594 as RD1.1. It should be understood that the current request to change the zoning of Parts 1 & 2, 12R-23594 from RD1.1 to CD1.12 requires a satisfactory Planning Rationale Report that revisits the 2008 OMB decision and shows why this matter needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, in light of the fact that there is no available satisfactory planning rationale in support of the applicant`s request to change the decision of the OMB (PL050845) on the lands designated 12R-23594, the lands known as Parts 1 & 2, 12R-23594, should remain as was approved by the OMB in 2008; the applicant’s request to change the zoning of Parts 1&2, 12R-23594, should be denied.

Based on the applicant’s concept plan, it is impossible to avoid surface parking lot on the lands fronting on Pioneer Avenue, which makes the requested zoning change on Parts 1 & 2, 12R-23594, less desirable and the proposed development less compatible with the existing houses on Pioneer Avenue.

This report, however, supports the request for addition of multi-unit residential use to the list of permitted uses on the Part 7, 12R-2359423594 and Block 197, 12M-355, and recommends two main types of multi-unit residential uses (dwelling units in a combined use building and stand-alone multi-unit dwelling) with applicable regulations. The intent is to allow for a more flexible development concept that will better address the potential parking issues on the site.

The request for increase in building height is addressed in three ways:  

The request for duplicate uses is not supported, because it reduces the opportunity to have a variety of neighbourhood commercial uses in the subject area and there is no satisfactory planning justification for the request.

A grocery store is already permitted under a retail store per by-law definition of a retail store.

The issue of entertainment lounge was intensely canvassed and studied, and resulted in very specific policies (as OPA 49) that amended the OP. The OPA 49 special polices are documented in section 1.19 of OP Vol. 2, which states that “entertainment lounges may only be permitted within the Entertainment Lounge Area outlined in Schedule A: Planning Districts and Policy Areas”. It should be noted that the Entertainment Lounge Area is restricted to the downtown area of the city as shown on page 13 of Appendix B, attached. The subject lands are outside of the designated area.