Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 30, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001473

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 61-16 - Refusal or neglect of County of Brant to make a decision Existing Zoning: Agriculture (A) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses Property Address/Description: 305 King Edward Street Municipality: County of Brant Municipality File No.: ZBA 10-20-MD OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001473 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001473 OLT Case Name: Sifton Properties Limited v. Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of County of Brant to make a decision Purpose: To permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses Property Address/Description: 305 King Edward Street Municipality: County of Brant Municipality File No.: PS1-20-MD OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001474 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001473

Heard: September 25, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Representative*

Sifton Properties Limited (“Sifton/Applicant/Appellant”) Matthew Helfand Andrea Skinner

County of Brant (“County”) Jyoti Zuidema Rochelle Welchman

David Clement Self-Represented*

Lafarge Canada Inc. (“Lafarge”) Jennifer Savini Wayne Fairbrother (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG on September 25, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1This matter was scheduled for one day as a settlement hearing. Sifton Properties Limited (“Sifton/Applicant/Appellant”) made applications to the County of Brant (“County”) for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) pursuant to the Planning Act to permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses comprising 248 single detached lots, a mixed use/medium density residential block designed to accommodate approximately 200 residential units and neighbourhood commercial uses with park, walkway and infrastructure blocks on a property municipally known as 305 King Edward Street (“subject property/subject lands/subject site/site”).

2The County’s Council failed to make a decision and the Applicant appealed. Pending the appeal, the Parties held settlement discussions and achieved a settlement (“proposed settlement/settlement proposal”).

3All Parties in attendance consented to the proposed settlement. The Affidavit of Chris Pidgeon, the Applicant’s planner was marked as Exhibit 1.

4Matthew. Helfand, Counsel for the Applicant, described the settlement that was agreed to and requested that orders be granted for the applications as per the draft ZBA and DPS and the conditions. For the ZBA, the final order is to be withheld is subject to one condition related to Block 24.

5Jyoti. Zuidema, Counsel on behalf of the County, confirmed the settlement proposal as described with the final order withheld on the ZBA for the one condition relating to Block 24.

6The Participants’ concerns per their statements on the effect on their properties value, and costs, are regrettably not planning matters. As for their concerns on traffic and other impact on their properties, these have been addressed by Mr. Pidgeon in his statement.

7Mr. Pidgeon was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters, and he supported the proposed settlement/proposed development.

THE PROPOSAL

8The settlement proposal will be implemented through the approval of a ZBA and a DPS. The draft ZBA amending the County Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 61-16 and the DPS and the Conditions are attached as Exhibit N and M to Mr. Pidgeon’s Affidavit (Exhibit 1).

9The settlement proposal was supported by a series of updated technical studies and reports.

10The settlement proposal reflects certain revisions to the proposed ZBA and the draft plan conditions that Lafarge Canada Inc. (“Lafarge”) requested. The Parties have agreed to a form of the DPS (July 13, 2023) and associated conditions of draft approval (July 18, 2023) which address outstanding issues with respect to the revised development.

11The settlement proposal conforms to the applicable planning framework and will result in an appropriate level of intensification and will provide 448 residential units in a variety of types and sizes, establish seven new municipal streets, widen/extend existing streets and have blocks for park purposes.

SITE AND AREA CONTEXT

12The Site is located in the Town of Paris (“Town”), southeast of the intersection of Cleaver Road and King Edward Street (Highway 2). The Site is located within the Primary Urban Settlement Area of the Town and is 23.89 hectares (59 acres) in size with 551 metres of frontage on Cleaver Road.

13The Site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached garage that are accessed from King Edward Street. The remainder of the Site is used for agricultural cash crop production.

14A moraine bisects the Property diagonally from the southwest to northeast and reaches 10 metres in height. The presence of the moraine results in significant changes in topography resulting in a grade differential of approximately 24 metres. The eastern and southern portions of the Site are of a higher elevation than the northern and western portions of the Site.

15An archaeological assessment has been conducted in support of the proposed development which located stone artifacts created by Indigenous Peoples in proximity to the natural heritage area south of the proposed DPS, on land identified as “Additional Lands Owned by the Applicant”. These artifacts are preserved in accordance with Ontario Heritage Act requirements and the area is proposed to be protected from development as recommended by Amick Consultants.

16The Site forms the south-westernmost boundary of the Primary Urban Settlement Area of the Town in this area.

17Lands to the east and north of the Site are within the Primary Urban Settlement Area of the Town and are primarily low-rise residential. The Arlington Meadows subdivision (Grandville Homes) abuts the Site to the east and includes the Cobblestone Elementary School and Sacred Heart Catholic School, which are the nearest schools to the Site. Arlington Meadows is currently at various stages of occupancy and development and has generally been advancing from east to west. The north-west portion of the Arlington Meadows subdivision proximate to the Site has been developed. The southwest portions of this subdivision adjacent to the Site have not been developed to date.

18Downtown of the Town is approximately four kilometres from the Site and includes a variety of commercial, recreation, and employment uses.

19Land south of the Site and north of the Urban Boundary line are within a natural heritage area consisting of a treed area with a small marsh. Land south of the Urban Boundary is presently open space and in agricultural use.

20A Union Gas valve station is located adjacent to the northwest portion of the Site at municipally addressed 501 Cleaver Road proximate to the intersection of King Edward and Cleaver. A single-detached dwelling is located at the southeast corner of King Edward and Cleaver.

21Land to the west of Cleaver Road is also outside of the Paris Urban Boundary and is presently used for agricultural purposes (cash crops) and is zoned Resource Extraction (EX) Zone.

22To the northwest, within the northwest quadrant of King Edward Street and Cleaver Road is a single detached dwelling (proximate to the intersection), as well as berms and screening associated with a Lafarge Aggregates operation.

23Bordering the eastern portion of the Site’s north property line is a triangular-shaped lot that accommodates a single detached dwelling (municipally known as 279 King Edward Street.). Land north of King Edward is currently open space, and single detached dwellings (fronting Misener Road West). North of the single detached dwellings fronting Misener Road is the Nith River valley.

24Mr. Pidgeon took the Tribunal through the Policy Framework in evaluating the proposal. He opined that the proposed settlement represents good planning, has regard for the matters in s.2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”) and the County Official Plan (“OP”). The subdivision has regard for the criteria in s.51(24) of the Planning Act.

[Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

25The settlement proposal is designed to be supportive of transportation and oriented to pedestrians. It provides for a compact built form and the provision of public space that is safe and accessible.

26The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal has regard for matters of provincial Interest, including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (s.2(h)); the adequate provision of a full range of housing (s.2(j)); the appropriate location of growth and development (s.2(p)); and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians (s.2(q)).

PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2020 (“PPS”)

27In Mr. Pidgeon’s opinion, the settlement proposal is consistent with the PPS in particular, the policies relating to the management of growth, intensification, and efficient use of land and infrastructure.

28He cites s. 1.1.1, on healthy, liveable and safe communities and s.1.1.3.2a) direction on land use in settlement areas based on densities and mix of land uses. His opinion is that the proposed development is an efficient use of land and is adequately serviced by existing municipal infrastructure.

29While the Town does not have public transportation, the proposed development proposes a logical street layout and walkable blocks and provides road and sidewalk connections to adjacent developed and developing land. This provides opportunities for active transportation that will minimize the generation of greenhouse gases.

30Mr. Pidgeon explained that s.1.1.3.4 directs appropriate development standards which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety. Section 1.1.3.6 identifies that new development should occur adjacent to the built-up area, have a compact form, mix of uses and densities allowing for efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities. All of which, the proposed development has taken into consideration and incorporates.

31For matters of transportation systems and transportation-demand management (“TDM") strategies, the site is well connected to arterial roads that provide efficient transportation (PPS s.1.6.7.1/s.1.6.7.2/s.1.6.7.4).

32The proposed applications are consistent with the natural heritage policies of the PPS. The Site and surrounding area are Significant Wildlife Habitats for the Northern Pin Oak, Pignut Hickory, Eastern Wood Peewee, Grasshopper Swallow, and Monarch. The majority of these species are located within the natural heritage area and buffer that are excluded from the Draft Plan as “Additional Lands Owned by Applicant”, however, the Grasshopper Swallow and Monarch will lose habitat. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), these impacts will be mitigated through the native seeding through the Additional Lands Owned by Applicant.

33The EIS also indicated that possible habitat for four endangered bat species is located within the Additional Lands Owned by Applicant (the area is excluded from the Draft Plan). A buffer around the natural heritage features is included in the Additional Lands Owned by Applicant.

34The proposed applications are consistent with the cultural heritage policies of the PPS. Stage 1-3 Archaeological Studies were prepared by Amick Consultants Limited and resulted in the discovery of one area of the Site that contains stone artifacts. This area is within the natural heritage buffer and is excluded from the Draft Plan.

35The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Pidgeon that the settlement proposal will provide appropriate residential intensification in a location with existing infrastructure, at a density that will efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and promote the use of active transportation and transit.

36The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Pidgeon that the settlement proposal includes new streets and open spaces for comfortable pedestrian movement and the proposal supports active transportation.

GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 2020 (“GROWTH PLAN”)

37Mr. Pidgeon opined that the settlement proposal conforms with the Growth Plan, in particular, s. 2.2.1(2)(a), directs that most growth will be directed to settlement areas that have delineated boundaries, have existing or planned water and wastewater systems, and can support achieving complete communities.

38Section 2.2.1.1 and Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan provide population forecasts for municipalities subject to the Growth Plan. For Brant County the Residential Populations Targets are as follows: 2031 – 49,000 people; 2036 – 53,000 people; 2041 – 57,000 people.

39The proposed applications conform to the Growth Management policies of the Growth Plan. The Site is within the urban boundary of the Town which is a serviced settlement area and intended to accommodate growth. Development within the Site conforms to the Growth Plan’s direction to locate growth within serviced settlement areas.

40The proposed applications will contribute to meeting the Growth Plan’s population targets. The Tribunal agrees that the Proposed Development will provide housing for approximately 1,182 people at full buildout. Additionally, the County is undertaking the Town Master Servicing Plan (“TMSP”) update to identify servicing infrastructure improvements required to accommodate growth.

41Policies for managing growth in the Designated Greenfield Areas are included in s. 2.2.7 of the Growth Plan. This section requires density targets to be measured over the entire designated greenfield area of each upper- or single-tier municipality and excludes natural heritage features and areas. For Brant County, the Growth Plan states that a density target of 40 residents and jobs combined per hectare is to be achieved by 2041.

42The development meets the greenfield density targets established by the Province of Ontario. For low-density development such as single detached dwellings, an average of 3.04 people live in each unit. For medium-density development, the average decreases to 2.14 people per unit. Using these numbers, the 248 single detached units are expected to house 754 people, while the medium-density block with a maximum of 200 units is expected to house 428 people. Combined, 1,182 people are anticipated to call the Proposed Development home, resulting in a density of 49.48 people per hectare, which exceeds the minimum density target for greenfield development.

43Section 3.2.6 of the Growth Plan requires subdivision applications be supported by a stormwater management plan that is informed by a subwatershed plan or equivalent, incorporates an integrated treatment approach to minimize stormwater flows and reliance on stormwater ponds, which includes appropriate low-impact development and green infrastructure. The Growth Plan also requires alignment with the stormwater master plan or equivalent for the settlement area.

44The Applications are supported by a Conceptual Stormwater Management Report. Low-Impact Development measures are recommended and incorporated into the subdivision design, instead of a traditional Wet Stormwater Management pond. Treatment of stormwater quality and quantity can be appropriately managed on site.

County of Brant Official Plan (“County OP”/“OP”)

45Mr. Pidgeon stated that the settlement proposal as implemented by the draft ZBA and DPS conforms with the OP. He explained as follows.

46The Proposed Development conforms to the Primary Urban Settlement Area policies of the OP. The development will add approximately 448 dwelling units to the Primary Urban Settlement Area in the Town and will occur on full municipal services. The dwellings are similar in form to the adjacent Arlington Meadows subdivision and are a natural extension of the surrounding community fabric. The proposed commercial uses will add mixed-use development to the neighbourhood, reducing the need for vehicular trips and contributing to a complete community.

47The Site is within the Primary Urban Settlement Area boundary for Paris but is outside of the built boundary as shown on schedule A-1. Section 2.2.5.1(e) of the OP identifies the lands as Greenfield areas that are subject to s 2.2.2.3 of the OP.

48Mr. Pidgeon stated that the Proposed Development conforms to the Greenfield policies of the OP. The Proposed Development will yield a density of 49.48 people per hectare, exceeding the Greenfield area density target of 40 residents and jobs per hectare. The proposed density is appropriate for the area and will contribute to increased density over Greenfield Areas in the County.

49The OP designates the Site “Urban Residential”. The Urban Residential designation permits a variety of residential housing types and neighbourhood commercial and institutional uses. Section 3.4.3 of the OP includes general policies that apply to all lands designated Urban Residential.

50Mr. Pidgeon testified that the proposed development is in conformity with the Urban Residential designation and policies of the OP.

51He added that the development is efficient and utilizes low-Impact development for stormwater management and will occur on full municipal services as described in the Functional Servicing Report. The surrounding road network has the capacity to accommodate traffic from the proposed development as discussed in the Traffic Impact Study.

52The proposed development conforms to the neighbourhood commercial policies of the “Urban Residential” designation. In keeping with the policies of the OP, only one neighbourhood commercial use is proposed within Block 249. The requested permitted commercial uses for the Residential Multiple high-density (RM3) zone are in conformity with the uses described in s. 3.4.2.(b)(i).

53Commercial development will be limited to a maximum of 500 square metres and no neighbourhood commercial uses are within 500 metres of Block 249. Off-street parking will be provided in accordance with the ZBL, and no open storage will be permitted. Lighting, signs, and the built form of commercial development will be determined in the future and reviewed by the County during the Site Plan approval stage.

54The single detached portion of the proposed development conforms to the low-density Urban Residential policies of the OP. The proposed subdivision is well connected to the surrounding road network, including local roads through the Arlington Meadows subdivision, Cleaver Road and collector roads (King Edward Street). A subdivision agreement will be part of the subdivision approvals process and the proposed development will be phased in accordance with County standards.

55The mixed-use / medium-density residential block conforms to the medium-density Residential policies of the OP (OP s.3.4.5). The permitted uses of the medium-density Residential policies are reflected in the requested in the RM3 zone for this block.

56Lands within Primary Urban Settlement Areas are required to have full County water and sanitary sewage systems in accordance with s.5.2.3.2. The Proposed Development will occur on full municipal services. The developer will construct a sanitary pumping station to the requirements of the County, and the pumping station will be assumed by the County. The pumping station is required as the Site is lower in topography than the surrounding gravity sewer network.

57There are improvements required to off-site sanitary servicing infrastructure. These are identified and being considered in the update to the TMSP now underway. In accordance with s. 5.2.2 c) and e) of the OP, it is anticipated that the development will be phased to coincide with the required infrastructure improvements being undertaken by the County. It is anticipated that there will be phasing provisions implemented in a subdivision agreement, permitting development in accordance with identified servicing improvements and identification of water and sanitary sewage treatment capacity. In the alternative, a Holding Provision could be applied to all, or portions of the Site permitting only existing uses until necessary servicing upgrades have been identified and implemented.

58Schedule B of the OP identifies King Edward Street as an Urban Residential Collector Road (and a Rural Arterial Road outside of Settlement Areas) and Cleaver Road as a Rural Local Road. Arlington Meadows features Urban Residential Local Roads, two of which are proposed to be extended into the Proposed Development.

59The OP promotes a land use pattern, density, and mix of uses that make use of transportation systems, supports transit opportunities, promotes walkability, and is oriented to pedestrians (s. 1.11.2.5.2).

60The subdivision will include sidewalks and pedestrian walkways (Blocks 257-259) to facilitate active transportation. Sidewalks will be integrated with the Arlington Meadows subdivision.

61The Site is not designated as an area with Potential Archaeological Resources on Appendix A of the OP. However, an archaeological find has been identified by an Archaeological Assessment. Applicable policies are included in s. 2.7.6.2 of the OP. Development within areas with Potential Archaeological Resources requires an archaeological assessment to assess the area and resources on the property, assess the impact of the proposed development on the area and resources, and mitigate impacts (subsection f). Archaeological resources that are discovered are to be preserved in accordance with the development policies of s. 2.7.6.3.

62A Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment was conducted on the Site and resulted in the discovery of stone artifacts that were created by Indigenous Peoples. This area has been protected from development by excluding the land in which they were found from the DPS (Additional Lands Owned by Applicant) as recommended by the Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment. Appropriate buffers have also been provided in accordance with Ministry standards to protect the archaeological site. The archeological find, together with the associated buffer and the heritage feature and buffers within the Additional Lands Owned by Applicant is proposed to be zoned natural heritage to ensure the area is protected from development.

63A portion of the south of the Subject Lands is within a natural heritage area as identified by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It is not identified as a Natural Heritage Feature on schedule C-1 of the OP. However, the policies of s. 2.3.2 that apply to natural heritage features and areas apply to these lands in accordance with s. 2.3.2.1(b). As such, this area of the Site is protected from development and site alteration in accordance with s. 2.3.2.2 and has been excluded from the developable lands.

64There are a number of single detached residential dwellings located between the proposed development and the existing aggregate extraction operation at the northwest quadrant of King Edward Street and Cleaver Road. Noise and dust mitigation measures of the aggregate operation address impacts on more proximate existing sensitive land uses. It is therefore assumed that these measures would also mitigate potential impacts on the proposed development.

65The proposed development conforms to the site suitability policies of the OP (s.2.7.2). The Geotechnical Investigation has analyzed the soil and drainage conditions of the Site and concludes that the soils are suitable for the proposed structures and the proposed low-Impact development stormwater management approach. The Functional Servicing Report and Traffic Impact Study, respectively, conclude that the development can be adequately serviced by identified improvements to municipal water, sewer, and road infrastructure with the addition of a sanitary pumping station which will be constructed by the developer.

66The development has adequate frontage on King Edward Street and Cleaver Road and the proposed frontage and area of the lots meet the requirements of the ZBL.

67Adverse impacts on natural heritage features are limited/mitigated by protecting the feature from development by defining the area and recommended buffer and excluding them from the DPS (Additional Lands Owned by Applicant) that is excluded from the DPS and zoning the Block as a natural heritage zone, prohibiting development.

68The Proposed Development will be of high-quality urban design and will meet the Urban Design policies of the OP(s.2.7.5.1).

69The development is of similar form to the adjacent Arlington Meadows subdivision and is in keeping with the low-density residential subdivision nature of the Town. The development is an efficient use of land and creates internal road networks that are well-connected to the surrounding infrastructure. Active transportation is facilitated through the inclusion of sidewalks, walkways, and neighbourhood commercial uses as part of the development.

70Trees will be retained in the natural heritage area, outside the draft plan, and additional trees will be planted in the parks and along street boulevards.

71Mr. Pidgeon emphasized that the required studies demonstrate that the development can be adequately serviced by identified servicing infrastructure improvements; the existing and proposed transportation network can accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development; and, natural heritage and cultural heritage features are protected by being excluded from the Draft Plan. Additionally, two park blocks are provided on the draft plan of subdivision to provide for recreational amenities for future residents.

72The proposed development is within the Town Primary Urban Settlement boundary. The proposed development is in conformity with OP policy objectives to direct new urban development, redevelopment, and intensification principally to the County’s Primary Urban Settlement Areas.

Southwest Paris Community Design Plan (2004)

73Mr. Pidgeon stated that the Subject Lands are within the Southwest Paris Community Design Plan Area and are included in the Design Plan, a study that was prepared by The Planning Partnership, URS Canada Inc., and Urban Metrics Inc. in 2004. The Plan was prepared to guide development in terms of uses and urban structure in Southwest Paris and predates the Growth Plan.

74The Plan is very broad in form and is less detailed than a secondary plan. The Plan includes the following features for the subject lands.

1. Low-density residential development;
2. A school;
3. Multiple stormwater management blocks;
4. Multiple accesses from Cleaver Road;
5. A general grid pattern that connects the blocks to adjacent eastern development via new roads; and,
6. Pedestrian connectivity.

75Mr. Pidgeon explained that although the proposed development differs slightly from the proposed street network envisioned by the Plan, the development generally conforms to the Plan. The majority of the development will be single detached dwellings and multiple stormwater management blocks are included in the development. The school is currently located east of the Site (Cobblestone Elementary School). The Site will be accessed from Cleaver Road, and the proposed development will be well integrated with the existing subdivision to the east and provide vehicular and active transit connections.

76The proposed development, he added, conforms to the intent of the Southwest Paris Community Design Plan.

County of Brant Zoning By-law 61-16

77The County of Brant Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) 61-16 zones the Site Agricultural (A). The Agricultural zone does not permit residential uses.

78In order to facilitate the DPS, a ZBA is requested to rezone the lands to Residential Singles (R1-X) with site-specific regulations to increase the Maximum Lot Coverage (dwelling) to 50 percent and the overall Maximum Lot Coverage to 55 percent, Residential Multiple High-Density (RM3-X) with site-specific provisions to permit the uses of the Neighbourhood Commercial (C1) zone, and Recreational Facilities (OS2). A site-specific Natural Heritage zone is requested for the Additional Land Owned by Applicant.

Draft Plan Subdivision

79The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) would create 248 single detached lots and approximately 150 – 200 additional units in the mixed-use/medium-density residential block fronting King Edward Street. In total, 448 residential units are proposed. The subdivision includes an internal municipal road network, active transit walkways, two large public parks, and a sanitary pumping station block.

80The proposed ZBA would rezone the lands as follows:

1. The portions of the development that are proposed to include single detached dwellings would be rezoned to the Residential Singles (R1-X) zone with site specific exceptions for maximum lot coverage;
2. The mixed-use block would be rezoned to the Residential Multiple high-density (RM3-X) zone with site-specific exceptions to permit neighbourhood commercial uses;
3. Rezone the proposed Park and Stormwater Management blocks to Recreational Facilities (OS2); and,
4. Protect the area immediately south of the Site that contains natural heritage features, an archaeological find, and a buffer from development by rezoning the lands to a site-specific Natural Heritage (NH) zone.

81The reports conclude that the DPS can be constructed without adversely impacting natural heritage features, traffic, or archaeological features, and that the development can be serviced with identified extensions of services from neighbouring properties and infrastructure improvements being considered through the TMSP update now underway by the County.

FINDINGS/DECISION

82The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Pidgeon that the settlement proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the 2020 PPS, and conforms with the 2020 Growth Plan and the OP. The plan of subdivision has regard to the s.51(24) Planning Act criteria.

83The proposed development comprising a range of residential units is an efficient use of the land and infrastructure that prioritizes intensification without unduly affecting natural heritage features and functions. It includes mitigation measures to address the potential loss of habitat to identified species at risk in the area of development. The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.

84The Tribunal finds that the mixed-use settlement proposal fulfills the objectives of the policies of the Growth Plan including the density targets of 40 persons and jobs per hectare.

85The proposed development supports complete communities with a range and mix of residence sizes for different household sizes and incomes (s.2.2.6(3)). The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal conforms to the Growth Plan.

86The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is of an appropriate density and height. It is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and will meet the County’s intensification targets. The proposed development which will provide two neighbourhood parks is appropriately located close to the Arlington Meadows subdivision that contains two elementary schools.

87The proposed development conforms to the Transportation policies of the OP. The subdivision provides connections to Arterial and Collector roads, as well as Local roads through the Arlington Meadows subdivision. The Tribunal finds that there will be limited traffic issues as the TIS concluded that the proposal will not negatively impact the surrounding transportation network.

88The settlement proposal as implemented by the draft ZBA and DPS will result in a compatible development with the existing uses and residential use in the surrounding area. The proposal’s mixed-use residential intensification is at an appropriate level that will lead to a complete community in the area.

89The Proposed Development conforms to the natural heritage policies of the OP. The identified natural heritage features containing a wetland and treed area and a buffer from the features are proposed to be excluded from the DPS and zoned natural heritage to ensure the area is protected from development. The Tribunal is satisfied that the development will protect the natural heritage Features and the Natural Cultural Features found on a section of the land identified in the DPS as ‘Additional Lands Owned by the Applicant’, to be zoned natural heritage.

90The settlement proposal is a development that is transportation and transit-supportive. The Tribunal finds optimizing the use of land and infrastructure represents good planning and is in the public interest.

91The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal contributes to a healthy liveable community with an increase of housing stock for the municipality. The proposal conforms to the County OP policies in the mixed-use Area designation and the compact built form is compatible in the area. With the mitigation measures proposed for the development, undesirable impacts are limited on the surroundings.

CONCLUSION

92The Tribunal accepts Mr. Pidgeon’s opinion evidence and finds that the draft ZBA and DPS applications have regard to matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan and the OP. The subdivision has regard to the criteria in s.51(24) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

93The proposed DPS and ZBA are appropriate, in the public interest and represent good planning for the following reasons:

1. They are consistent with the policies of the PPS;
2. They conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
3. They conform to the “Urban Residential” designation, natural heritage, archaeological, servicing, transportation, site-suitability, and subdivision policies of the OP;
4. The proposed ZBL implements the “Urban Residential” designation policies of the Official Plan on the Site, including the provision for neighbourhood commercial uses;
5. The proposed development intensifies land within the Primary Urban Settlement Area of the Town of Paris;
6. The subdivision can be adequately serviced, with extensions of municipal infrastructure and planned improvements identified in the Paris Master Servicing Study;
7. The natural heritage and archaeological features associated with the Site have been protected;
8. The Site is an ideal location for residential and mixed-use development;
9. The development provides opportunities for active transportation;
10. The development is compatible with adjacent land uses;
11. Commercial uses are provided to assist with the development of a complete; community; and,
12. The development is appropriate within this urban context.

94The evidence and testimony of Mr. Pidgeon are uncontested. The Tribunal will allow the appeal in part, approve the DPS and the Conditions. It will approve the ZBA in part, withhold final order for the ZBA subject to one condition relating to Block 24, as requested by the Applicant and the County.

ORDER

95Accordingly, the Tribunal Orders that:

1. The appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment application is granted in part;
2. The appeal of the Draft Plan of Subdivision is granted in part;
3. The draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment 1 to this order is approved in part subject to the condition listed in paragraph 6 below;
4. The Draft Plan of Subdivision attached as Attachment 2 to this Order is approved;
5. The Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions attached as Attachment 3 to this Order are approved;
6. The Tribunal’s Final Order in respect of the Zoning By-law Amendment, as it relates to the lands identified as RM3-X(H) and shown on Schedule B to Attachment 1 (“Block 24”), shall be withheld pending the Tribunal being advised by Sifton Properties Limited and the County of Brant that the following condition has been met: a. The Official Plan designation for Block 24 has changed to include appropriate policies to permit the uses contemplated by the RM3-X zoning.
7. The Tribunal’s Final Order in respect of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and conditions shall issue;
8. The Tribunal orders upon the consent of the parties and pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Brant shall have the authority to clear the conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the Draft Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG MEMBER

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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3