Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL190339, PL190340
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Humberplex Developments Inc.
Appellant: Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 47 (OPA 47)
Municipality: City of Vaughan
LPAT Case No.: PL190339
LPAT File No.: PL190339
LPAT Case Name: Patterson v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Humberplex Developments Inc.
Appellant: Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 48 (OPA 48)
Municipality: City of Vaughan
LPAT Case No.: PL190340
LPAT File No.: PL190340
LPAT Case Name: Patterson v. Vaughan (City)
Heard: December 17 and 18, 2020 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
City of Vaughan B. Kussner C. Facciolo
Humberplex Developments Inc. G. Borean D. Donnelly
Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc. D. Donnelly A. Whyte M. Fletcher
Kirby 27 Developments Limited, East Kleinberg Developments Inc. and 1045501 Ontario Limited I. Kagan K. Jennings S. Kagan (Student-at-law)
York Catholic District School Board S. O’Melia
DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This is a dispute about the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the boundary of the Greenbelt Plan, and that has existing adjacent and nearby residential development.
2The City of Vaughan (“City”) adopted Official Plan Amendment 47 (“OPA 47”) and Official Plan Amendment 48 (“OPA 48”) to redesignate lands for redevelopment. Humberplex Developments Inc. (“Humberplex”), Brian Patterson and Suzi Recine appealed these matters to this Tribunal. At an earlier Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the Tribunal substituted Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc. (“Friends”) for Mr. Patterson and Ms. Recine as Parties in these proceedings. Humberplex and the Friends oppose these official plan amendments and are the Appellants in these matters.
3The York Catholic District School Board (“YCDSB”) is a Party and appears in support of OPA 47 and OPA 48.
4The interest of the YCDSB is to ensure that appropriate school sites are identified and maintained as the lands proposed for development in OPA 47 and OPA 48 continue through this and the next phases of the planning process. YCDSB advised the Tribunal that it is satisfied that these official plan amendments both contain sufficient flexibility to ensure the refinement of the precise location, size and number of schools through the subsequent planning processes. No other Party disagreed with this interpretation and no Party called any evidence to challenge or limit the proposed permission for schools within all residential and community area land use designations within OPA 47 and OPA 48.
5Neither the Region of York (“Region”) nor the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) are Parties to these proceedings. The Region and TRCA have both provided comments in support of OPA 47 and OPA 48, subject to certain conditions identified in both instruments.
6Although these matters are not consolidated, they are being heard together.
7Kirby 27 Developments Limited (“Kirby 27”) is the owner of the property which is the subject of OPA 47. East Kleinburg Developments Inc. and 1045501 Ontario Limited (together “East Kleinburg”) are the owners of the property which is the subject of OPA 48. Since these matters are being heard together, and for ease of reference, this decision may refer to Kirby 27 and East Kleinburg collectively as the Applicants.
8These matters have been the subject of CMCs and a request for review of an earlier decision, which request was denied. The CMCs dealt with a variety of matters, including a demand for the recusal of an earlier panel, challenges to this panel’s jurisdiction to preside, disputed conditions on a motion to adjourn, a motion to strike affidavits, challenges to the application of the statutory regime on the question of whether a party is permitted to call or examine witnesses and to the decision of the Tribunal to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction to call or not to call a witness to be examined by the Tribunal, and directions for any request for costs, among other matters. The reader is referred to the decisions from those CMCs for additional background and details.
Materials Before the Tribunal
9The Tribunal had extensive documentation and materials before it in these proceedings, totaling nearly 8,000 pages of evidence and approximately 600 pages of final submissions and authorities.
10The documentation included affidavit evidence containing the expert professional opinions from 13 experts.
11The City filed separate materials for OPA 47 and for OPA 48. Each of these filings included an affidavit from a land use planner.
12The Applicants filed affidavits for six experts, including land use planning, transportation, ecology, fluvial geomorphology, servicing engineering and hydrogeology.
13Humberplex filed affidavits for five experts, including aquatic and fisheries biology, servicing engineering, hydrogeology, transportation, and land use planning.
14The Friends relied upon the affidavits and professional opinions filed by Humberplex and added a further affidavit from an expert in land use planning.
15Under the statutory regime for these proceedings, only the Tribunal could call and examine witnesses. Given the voluminous material filed, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to call and examine any witness and, instead, to rely on a review of the materials filed to identify relevant facts and consider differing professional opinions. While time consuming, this approach enabled a careful and thorough consideration of these expert opinions and the positions of the Parties on these two planning instruments.
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16These written reasons do not recount all the evidence and opinions contained in the materials filed. Instead, these reasons focus on the Tribunal’s identification of key issues and points in dispute.
The Issues
17The Tribunal identifies five central issues for this hearing:
Are OPA 47 and OPA 48 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”)?
Do OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended by amendment 1 in 2020 (“Growth Plan”)?
Do OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the Greenbelt Plan 2017 (“GBP 2017”)?
Do OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the Region’s Official Plan (“ROP”)
Do OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the applicable policies and overall policy regime of the City’s Official Plan (“COP”)?
18The Tribunal identifies five key issues of concern to the Appellants, paraphrasing them as follows, that inform the Appellants’ concerns with the first five issues:
Is approval of these official plan amendments premature until such time as all outstanding questions are resolved through final analysis?
Is there a need for the proposed redevelopment?
Has the proposed stormwater management given appropriate regard to climate change and the protection of natural features?
Is the residential portion of the proposed redevelopment compatible with adjacent residential?
Is the transportation system appropriate and capable of handling the projected traffic?
The Official Plan Amendments and Area Context
19The lands within OPA 47 and OPA 48 are adjacent. They are located at the southeast corner of Kirby Road and Highway 27. OPA 48 is the more southerly of the two; OPA 47 is immediately adjacent to the north.
20The lands in OPA 47 and OPA 48 are within an existing settlement area. OPA 48 is also within the built boundary. These amendments are not a settlement area expansion that might trigger a municipal comprehensive review.
21The OPA 47 and OPA 48 lands are within the Humber River watershed. There are several natural features and hazards, particularly in the valley lands, which form or are adjacent to a natural heritage system. The redevelopment contemplated by these two official plan amendments is largely confined to the table lands and is outside of the natural features and hazards which form part of the natural heritage system.
22In 1999, approval was given to develop the Copper Creek Golf Course (“Copper Creek”). The Copper Creek lands are those now covered by OPA 48.
23The area covered by Copper Creek includes table lands and valley lands. Development around and near Copper Creek includes several residential subdivisions, including the Humberplex development adjacent to the south.
24The development of Copper Creek included the golf course, a golf school, a driving range, a clubhouse which itself includes banquet facilities for events, a maintenance building, cart paths and six constructed ponds. The ponds, some of which are in the valley lands, serve several purposes from irrigation and golfing water hazards to stormwater management.
25The OPA 47 lands are undeveloped currently. They are immediately north of OPA 48 and in a Designated Greenfield Area.
26OPA 47 is comprised of 23.55 hectares (“ha”), of which the westerly 17.24 ha are redesignated for development. Specifically, OPA 47 redesignates the 17.24 ha from Agricultural to Low Rise Residential with a Neighbourhood Park overlay. The eastern portion of the lands are proposed to remain with their current designations of Natural Areas and Greenbelt Plan. A small 0.8 ha are redesignated from Natural Areas and Countryside to Community Areas.
27OPA 48 has 71.14 ha of land. The 39.89 ha of the western portion of the lands are redesignated from Private Open Space, Natural Area and Agricultural to Low Rise Residential, Private Open Space and Low-Rise Mixed Use with Park and School overlays. There are also 2.07 ha redesignated from Natural Areas and Countryside to Community Areas.
28The Copper Creek golf course stretches into the valley lands. With the proposed redevelopment, a golf course in the valley lands will be maintained but it will be much smaller. The constructed ponds will be reduced in number and the stormwater management function will be upgraded.
Analysis and Findings
An Iterative and Phased Planning Approach
29This section deals with the question of prematurity, asserted by the Appellants.
30These two amendments arose from applications that included concept plans for development. The concept plans are not subdivision plans, are not site plans and should not be confused with either. The concept plans are not before the Tribunal for decision in these proceedings. They are simply illustrations of a possible approach for redevelopment, subject to further study and refinement.
31The applications and supporting materials that resulted in these two amendments have been studied extensively with a variety of consultations and agency review and comment. This process itself has been iterative and resulted in revisions to the proposed redevelopment in response to these consultations and agency comments.
32The amendments themselves set out a general intention for the lands and establish the framework for a phased approach to final determination and fine tuning of permissions. In establishing appropriate land use designations, these amendments provide the background context against which considerable further study and analysis is to be undertaken to ensure that the anticipated results are achievable. Still to be undertaken are a scoped block plan, a draft plan of subdivision, zoning by-law amendments and a site plan.
33The Appellants recognize the requirements and conditions for studies associated with these further planning instruments. They also recognize that certain of these further instruments can be appealed by a third party such as the Appellants, but others cannot. The Appellants disagree with the phased approach, suggesting that all analyses for each phase should be completed and found to be satisfactory before OPA 47 and OPA 48 are put into place. The Tribunal disagrees.
34The phased approach, with its concomitant requirement for additional detailed work, appropriately recognizes and implements the City’s preference to move from the broader to the more specific. It is an approach that is both consistent with the planning hierarchy established under the Planning Act (“Act”) and the Block Plan approach found in the COP. The process is not a new one in the City.
35This iterative and phased approach is recognized and supported by the TRCA as set out in its commenting letters of July 16, 2018 and May 3, 2019. In the 2019 letter, the TRCA acknowledged that certain of its comments would be dealt with at the official plan amendment stage and others would be deferred to be dealt with in the future scoped block plan and subdivision processes. The Tribunal understands that the TRCA concerns to be dealt with at the official plan amendment stage were then dealt with satisfactorily with the amendments now before the Tribunal.
36The TRCA recognition of the appropriateness of the phased process is particularly relevant since the concerns of the TRCA focus on environmental matters with the protection of natural features and functions.
37The Appellants, through the planning affidavit submitted by Humberplex, question the judgment of the TRCA in this matter. As one example, this planner recognizes that there are valley lands associated with operating the private golf course and that may be required to be conveyed to public ownership through analysis in the subsequent phases. He asserts that any valley lands to be conveyed should be conveyed to public ownership at the official plan stage.
38The adjacent Humberplex development also had lands to be conveyed. The Tribunal understands that the conveyance occurred on registration of its plan of subdivision and not at the official plan stage. Both OPA 47 and OPA 48 provide specific policy direction for the public ownership of the undevelopable lands that would occur at a stage subsequent to that of these official plan amendments.
39The limits of development are determined by TRCA procedures and staking, and done so in the matters now before the Tribunal. The purpose of any conveyance of undevelopable valley lands is to protect the natural features of those lands. This planner did not suggest that the timing of conveyance for Humberplex was inappropriate nor did he cite any requirement of the Act or provide any credible land use planning reason for why it should be changed for the Applicants.
Need
40The Appellants have raised the question of whether the proposed redevelopment is needed.
41Neither the PPS 2020 nor the Growth Plan impose the requirement of a test of need before redevelopment may occur. Intensification is encouraged generally throughout settlement areas where the development or redevelopment is appropriate. The intensification targets are minimums, not maximums.
42The test is not need. Rather, it is whether the redevelopment is appropriate in terms of the other applicable policies, goals and requirements. Analyzing OPA 47 and OPA 48 through the lens of appropriateness is what engages the issues set out above and the overriding tests of consistency with the PPS 2020 and conformity with the applicable provincial and regional plans.
Climate Change, Natural Features and Stormwater Management
43Responding to climate change and protecting natural features are themes found in matters of provincial interest, the PPS 2020, the GBP 2017, the ROP and the COP. Part of meeting concerns in these areas is in keeping the proposed redevelopment out of the Natural Heritage System. Part is found also in applying proper stormwater management.
44These amendments do not include development in the Natural Heritage System.
45Understanding the appropriate water balance on the lands is not a new exercise but it is an important one that supports analysis of the necessary steps to deal with climate change. There are three areas of concern.
46First is the question of which condition should be used as a starting point to determine the current water balance. The Tribunal is persuaded by the TRCA approach that the starting point is properly the condition before the Copper Creek golf course; and the appropriate end point is the redevelopment of these lands.
47Second, none of the experts challenge the feasibility of residential redevelopment from a hydrogeological perspective. The expectation is that the further detailed study and review will result in a yield reduced from that shown in the concept plan. Refining and adjusting final yield, based on further detailed technical analysis, is the appropriate understanding and implementation of the iterative and phased approach in which these amendments sit. These highly technical further studies to achieve water balance must be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA.
48The third area resembles a full circle back to a lack of understanding of the iterative and phased process with its further detailed work. This applies to two areas: concerns about stormwater management on-site and concern about off-site impacts, particularly for the fishery.
49The Appellants’ concern about stormwater management, advanced as a question of prematurity, rests on technical engineering that explores options for low-impact development. The importance of the low-impact development analysis is that it informs the options available to achieve water balance, which informs the decisions to come on the appropriate servicing engineering options for stormwater management.
50There is an existing constructed pond in the valley lands, built as part of the golf course development, that is to be upgraded to accommodate stormwater management from the table land development. Doing so minimizes the number of stormwater management facilities, constrains further disturbances in the valley and may result in an ecological benefit.
51As a result of the application of the GBP 2017 transition policy, the requirements of the City’s Official Plan Amendment 601 (“OPA 601”) are relevant. Upgrading one of the existing constructed ponds responds to a key policy in OPA 601 which, while discouraging stormwater facilities in the valley lands, permits stormwater facilities in the valley lands subject to approval of the TRCA.
52How stormwater is handled, where it goes and what is in it are particular concerns for the valley lands since all of OPA 47 and OPA 48 are within the Humber River watershed. The fluvial geomorphic assessment, done as part of the preliminary environmental work for the official plan amendments, delineated two reaches of the East Humber River in the valley lands. Based on information from federal and provincial authorities, these two reaches are occupied by the endangered minnow species Redside Dace.
53The Appellants’ expert in aquatic and fisheries biology was sharply critical of the Applicants’ Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), suggesting sub-assessment report discrepancies could not be considered minor. Her particular focus was the fluvial geomorphic analysis. The Tribunal disagrees.
54First, the analysis of the Appellants’ expert was a blind, which is reasonable at first blush; but the blind appears to have included a lack of either knowledge or understanding that the EIS was preliminary and specifically designed to guide the further studies that are required with the further planning phases.
55Second, the TRCA reviewed the work and the Appellants’ expert affidavits and continued to have no objection to the official plan amendments. In its letter to the City, dated January 24, 2020, the TRCA stated:
Based on our review of the appellant affidavits relating to environmental issues, TRCA staff continues to have no objection to the OPA approvals. TRCA’s technical comments on the two project sites from our July 16, 2018 letter remain applicable and will need to be addressed through the future scoped Block Plan and Draft Plan of Subdivision processes.
56The Tribunal repeats, these further studies are part of the additional work that is yet to come as part of the additional planning phases. As also noted above, these studies are to be to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA.
Compatibility
57The Appellants’ concern with compatibility has two elements: conformity with the GBP 2017, discussed below, and compatibility primarily with the existing Humberplex development adjacent to the south of the OPA 48 lands.
58Compatibility does not mean the same. It is more commonly understood to mean that developments may exist together in harmony.
59The proposed redevelopment of the golf course under these amendments is low-rise, which is the predominant form of existing development in the area. Both amendments have specific requirements to deal with respecting and reinforcing character that include height, massing, scale and other matters. Unless specifically amended or exempted on a site-specific basis, the redevelopment is subject to the requirements of the COP.
60The further environmental work will identify and refine the low-impact development options. These options will inform yield which will, in turn, inform the final detail of the redevelopment including compatibility.
Transportation
61The Appellants’ transportation expert suggests the two amendments do not represent good transportation planning and are premature. The Tribunal disagrees.
62The Tribunal dismisses the suggestion of prematurity regarding transportation, as it has above on other matters, for two reasons: the test at the official plan amendment stage is feasibility that requires further detailed work in further phases, and there will be further phases.
63Kirby Road is under the aegis of the City and Highway 27 is under the Region. Both have reviewed the work of the Applicants’ experts, which includes recommendations for future transportation network improvements. Both have also provided comments on the transportation study which are intended to guide further studies.
64The Tribunal finds that feasibility has been established. Fine tuning will come through the additional, fine grain studies in future phases.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
65Section 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal’s decision to be consistent with the provincial policy statement in effect at the time of the decision.
66The initial land use planning affidavit evidence was filed prior to the time the PPS 2020 came into effect. At the time, the PPS 2014 was in effect and the professional opinions expressed in the initial affidavits were in the context of the PPS 2014. Supplementary affidavits were filed by the land use planning affiants on the question of whether, in considering the PPS 2020, there was any change in their professional opinion as expressed regarding the PPS 2014.
67There was no substantive change to the professional land use planning opinions regarding consistency of the amendments with the PPS 2020. Those who opined that the amendments were consistent with the PPS 2014 continued to feel they were consistent with the PPS 2020. Those who opined that the amendments were not consistent with the PPS 2014 continued to feel they were not consistent with the PPS 2020.
68The PPS 2020 encourages the efficient use of land and infrastructure. It directs development to settlement areas. For lands within the settlement area that are not within the built boundary, it encourages new development to occur adjacent to the built boundary. It encourages a mix of housing, prefers development on full municipal services, calls for the protection of natural features and encourages municipal economic stability.
69OPA 47 and OPA 48 are both within the settlement area and OPA 48 is within the built boundary. OPA 47 is adjacent to the built boundary.
70Development in both amendment areas can be serviced with the extension of existing municipal systems for water and wastewater. A mix of housing and community uses is contemplated. Public streets will be planned to accommodate active transportation and community connectivity.
71Analyses for stormwater management and the EIS, coupled with the further study to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA, respond to the importance of maintaining an appropriate water balance, planning for climate change and protecting natural features.
72The Tribunal finds that OPA 47 and OPA 48 are consistent with the PPS 2020.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019
73Section 3(5) of the Act also requires the decision of the Tribunal to conform to the provincial plans in effect on the date of the decision. For OPA 47 and OPA 48, the applicable provincial plans are the Growth Plan 2019 and the GBP 2017.
74The Growth Plan emphasizes the need to build complete communities. Like the PPS 2020, it encourages intensification within settlement areas that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure and supports both active transportation and transit viability. It calls for the development of complete communities with a range of housing. The Growth Plan also emphasizes the importance of protecting natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions.
75The City is already mature as a complete community with its diversity of neighbourhoods. OPA 47 and OPA 48 contribute to strengthening that maturity while continuing to assist in meeting the objectives of the Growth Plan.
76The Tribunal finds that OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the Growth Plan.
Greenbelt Plan, 2017
77The GBP 2017 is the second provincial plan to which these planning instruments must conform. First introduced in 2005, this plan was revised in 2017. The GBP 2017 indicates where urbanization should not occur so that lands within the Greenbelt are protected.
78This plan has a transition provision in s. 5.2.1 that applies to certain lands within OPA 47 and OPA 48. The lands to which this provision applies are certain table lands, but not all, and the stormwater management pond in the valley that is discussed above.
79Referred to as transition lands, the table lands are located along the western edge of the valley, some of which are in the OPA 48 area and some of which are in the OPA 47 area.
80All the transition lands are between the GBP 2017 limit line and the development limit as staked by the TRCA. Of these transition lands, 2.8 ha are proposed for redevelopment for residential uses while 2.5 ha will remain for a golf use.
81The transition provision recognizes that if an official plan specifically designated land uses prior to December 16, 2004, the approval of that designation may continue to be recognized and further applications to implement the official plan approval are not required to conform to the GBP 2017.
82OPA 601 meets the date requirement of s. 5.2.1 by being in effect prior to the December 16, 2004. OPA 601 permits both a golf use and limited residential development on the OPA 48 transition lands and residential on the transition lands in OPA 47.
83The 2.8 ha proposed for residential use on the transition table lands represents about 5% of the total developable area of both OPA 47 and OPA 48. The concept plan proposes limited residential development on these 2.8 ha. The further studies to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA will inform and ground truth any adjustment necessary to determine the final limit of development line.
84The EIS study, reviewed by the City and the TRCA, acknowledged that the proposed redevelopment would involve the removal of a small Silver Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp and a small Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh. Both were considered to provide minimal ecological functions. The EIS concluded that there would be no negative impacts on the natural features and functions.
85Through the transition provision, the application of OPA 601, the continuation of existing golf uses, the limited residential uses now proposed and the additional studies that may inform an adjusted limit of development, the feasibility of the proposed upgrade to the constructed pond for stormwater management, the reduction in the number of constructed ponds, the further work to refine water balance, the EIS and fluvial geomorphic study results, the protection of natural features and functions particularly for the Redside Dace, and the requirement of further studies to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA, the Tribunal finds that OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the applicable requirements of the GBP 2017.
York Region Official Plan
86Both OPA 47 and OPA 48 are within the settlement area. OPA 48 is also within the built boundary. The western portions of both amendment areas are designated Towns and Villages.
87The remaining portions of OPA 47 include Agricultural Area and a series of designations that recognize environmental and natural feature protection. These include Regional Greenlands System, Environmentally Significant Area, Permanent or Intermittent Stream, Woodlands, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, Greenbelt Protected Countryside and Greenbelt Plan Area Boundary.
88Within the OPA 48 area, the southwestern corner of the property is within a 10-25 Year Wellhead Protection Area. In addition to Agricultural Area, the eastern portion of the OPA 48 area includes several designations akin to those in OPA 47, and include: Regional Greenlands system, Environmentally Significant Area, Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Permanent or Intermittent Stream, Woodlands, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, Greenbelt Protected Countryside and Greenbelt Plan Area Boundary.
89The Regional Greenlands System is designed to protect key natural heritage and key hydrologic features and functions. The ROP recognizes that fine grain, site-specific analysis and appropriate studies may result in some adjustment to the Regional Greenlands System boundaries. The ROP does not require an official plan amendment in such cases.
90The lands inside the GBP 2017 boundary that are not subject to transition are subject to the GBP 2017. The lands inside the GBP 2017 boundary that are subject to transition are subject to OPA 601 to determine transition status. Where the ROP is in full force and effect, the redevelopment of the transition lands is subject to the ROP, as are the lands outside the GBP 2017.
91Given that the phased approach requires further studies, the Region advised the City that the Region has no objection to the two amendments.
92The Tribunal finds that OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the ROP.
City of Vaughan Official Plan, 2010
93There is disagreement between the Parties on the role of OPA 601.
94OPA 601 applies only to the lands that are transitioned from the GBP 2017. For lands outside the transition area, the COP applies. OPA 601 does not supplant the COP where the COP is applicable.
95The COP is the relevant local official plan to determine land use planning appropriateness of the amendments. Since these are amendments to the COP, the test of conformity to the COP is whether the amendments conform to the applicable policies that are not amended by OPA 47 and OPA 48 and conform to the overall policy regime of the COP such that, once amended by OPA 47 and OPA 48, the COP continues to be a coherent whole to set the context and reflect the City’s vision and ambition.
96As a municipal official plan, the COP nests within the context of the PPS 2020, applicable provincial plans and the ROP. These amendments to the COP are consistent with the PPS 2020, conform to the applicable provincial plans and conform to the ROP. They continue to develop the local community in an orderly and appropriate fashion and set the context for a phased approach to finalize details of redevelopment with further study. The Tribunal finds that both OPA 47 and OPA 48 conform to the applicable policies and the overall policy regime of the COP.
Matters of Provincial Interest
97Section 2 of the Act requires that regard be had for matters of provincial interest. The Tribunal finds that these amendments have had regard for matters of provincial interest.
98The Tribunal notes in particular s. 2 (a) on the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; s. 2 (e) on the supply and efficient use and conservation of water; s. 2 (f) on the adequate provision and efficient use of transportation, sewage and water services; s. 2 (h) on the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; s. 2 (i) on the adequate provision and distribution of educational and recreational facilities; s. 2 (j) on the adequate provision of a range of housing; s. 2 (m) on the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies; s. 2 (p) on the appropriate location of growth and development; and s. 2 (s) on the adaptation to a changing climate.
The Decision of the City
99Section 2.1(1) of the Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to the decision of the municipal council and to the information and materials considered in making its decision.
100These two amendments were the subject of extensive discussion, study and review by relevant municipal departments, commenting agencies, and public consultation. The results were presented to City Council to inform its decision to adopt these two official plan amendments. The City’s decision, and the materials before Council, have all been before the Tribunal in these proceedings and the Tribunal has had regard to the decision of Council and to the materials it considered in making its decision.
ORDER
101The Tribunal orders that the appeals of Official Plan Amendment 47 are dismissed, and Official Plan Amendment 47 is approved.
102The Tribunal orders that the appeals of Official Plan Amendment 48 are dismissed, and Official Plan Amendment 48 is approved.
“Susan de Avellar Schiller”
SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal