Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Shopping Centre Development

  1. Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation v. City of Owen Sound

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    In March 2012, Heritage Grove Centre Inc. and Villarboit Development Corporation applied for an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law 2010-78. The intent was to increase the permitted Gross Floor Area and to relax or eliminate the Gross Floor Area and unit size restrictions, so as to facilitate a new retail development. However, City Council refused the application, with concerns about potential market impact. The Applicants appealed to the Board. However, after a series of pre-hearing conferences, the Applicants and the City agreed on modifications to the application as well as a draft Zoning By-law.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The parties were able to agree on a new draft Zoning By-law, which formed part of their settlement. The Board also considered the opinion of expert planner Wendy Nott, who stated, “the settlement is appropriate, in conformance with applicable policy, and represents good land-use planning in the public interest.” The Board found no reason to disagree.


    Document(s):



  2. Signum Corporation v. City of Peterborough and Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Signum Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act in regard to Official Plan Amendment No. 126 of the City of Peterborough and further, has appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Act in regard to Zoning By-law Nos. 04-037 and 04-038 of the City of Peterborough. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has brought a motion under subsections 17(45) and 34(25) of the Act to dismiss the appeals. Wal-Mart seeks its costs incurred in bringing this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.


    Held:

    Motion granted


    Reasons:

    Based on the affidavit evidence submitted by Wal-Mart the Board finds that OPA 126 and By-laws 04-37 and 04-38 are consistent with the City’s policies. The Official Plan sets out a multi-nodal retail commercial structure, which reflects the Wal-Mart site, adjacent to the designated Portage Node and the proposed Signum site in the southwest part sector of the City, which is independent of a Shopping Node designation. The Board finds that the proposal before it represents an incremental expansion of the designated Portage Node and that it reinforces the City’s planned commercial structure.


    Document(s):



  3. 300 John Street v. Markham (Town)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This proceeding deals with the proposal for the partial demolition of the existing commercial mall in order to make room for a large format store for home improvement merchandise. The Town rejected the application for the Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments that would enable the proposal to come into being. The owner launched the requisite appeals to the Board relating to the three planning instruments that are set out in the title of proceedings.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Boards decision lies on the overall poor planning and design of the proposed building. The pedestrian conductivity, the lack of an elevator, the two tier parking formats, the outdoor display of goods and wares and a large amount of outdoor space devoted to a garden centre all contribute to our sense of unease even though the Board is aware that some tinkering may be of some help. The Board is of the view that a different planning exercise dealing with the implication of such a shift must be done prior to an approval.


    Document(s):



  4. City of Peterborough Downtown BIA Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings Ltd. and AON inc. v. Searun Estates Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Downtown BIA/CIP, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings ltd., City of Peterborough Downtown BIA and others have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24), 34(19) of the Planning Act and section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, from a decision to the City of Peterborough to approve of Proposed Amendment No. 104 to the Official Plan for the City. The applications would permit the redevelopment of a site outside of the Commercial Business District (CBD) for use as a large Chapters/Starbucks.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed, Decision subsequently amended


    Reasons:

    While it may be desirable for Chapters to locate in the CBD, they are not prohibited from locating elsewhere. The applications are consistent with the policy framework.
    The Board having considered the written submissions of the parties on the requests of AON Inc. and Mason Homes Limited to amend the Board’s decision of August 20, 1999, Decision/Order No. 1558, and especially the letter of October 4, 1999 from the City of Peterborough, hereby amends its decision and order by deleting “4.4.5.1” from the first line on page 16 and substituting “4.4.9.1.”


    Document(s):