Appeal of zoning bylaw for affordable housing build in Cambridge dismissed
An appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the zoning for a Habitat for Humanity build in Cambridge has been dismissed.
The OLT decided March 11 to side with the developers for the construction of 24 affordable stacked townhouse units at 325 Shantz Hill Rd., which was opposed by residents Martin and Gerda Wiens.
The couple argued seven areas of concern surrounding the passing of the zoning bylaw by Cambridge council: density, compatibility, safety during access and egress, environmental/natural features, affordability, completeness of application and proper process.
Habitat for Humanity had purchased the land several years ago with the intention of constructing affordable housing. The proposal includes two blocks of stacked townhouses, 3.5 storeys in height with 12 units in each block. Vehicle and pedestrian access will be on Shantz Hill through a driveway and sidewalk connection. Landscape buffers will be added to the north, west and south of the property, while a 15-metre setback has been added to the rear of the property, which contains a wetland and woodland area.
Habitat for Humanity, through its planners, submitted an application in November 2022 to amend the zoning bylaw to permit the build on the developable portion of the property, while protecting the environmentally sensitive area at the rear.
In April 2023, the planners resubmitted the application to provide a response to action items and comments raised by the city and residents. On Aug. 15, 2023, city council approved the zoning bylaw change.
An appeal was filed after the approval.
Planners for Habitat for Humanity stated the zoning bylaw amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding land use, does not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, conforms with upper and lower tier municipal official plans, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
It was further explained the zoning bylaw amendment provides an efficient use of underutilized land with the built-up area of the city.
According to the OLT’s decision report, all of the Wienses’ concerns were addressed by the planners and evidence was provided to prove the completeness of the application. Discussion around safety with access and egress was agreed by all parties to be best left to the site plan stage.
The Wienses did argue the build is not compatible with the surrounding area, under the city’s official plan, and the massing and scale of the project would dwarf surrounding homes if setbacks weren’t increase. The OLT stated in its decision the Wiens “lacked a compelling argument and provided little illustration to show that the proposed development would not be compatible with the established community and/or have any adverse impact on area residents other than his own property.”
The tribunal stated in its decision, based on “uncontroverted evidence,” the zoning bylaw amendment with site-specific amendments meets the required legislative framework and adds in the province’s direction to add to the supply of affordable housing units.