Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 29, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004179

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

Applicant/Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial Reference Number: ZBA-18-RA Property Address: 70 and 72 Beverly Street West Municipality/UT: County of Brant OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004179 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179 OLT Case Name: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. v. Brant (County)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial Reference Number: PSI-18-RA Property Address: 70 and 72 Beverly Street West Municipality/UT: County of Brant OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004180 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179

Heard: February 5, 2024 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.	Courtney Boyd
County of Brant	Brian Duxbury

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEboer AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a five-day hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. (“Appellant”) concerning the County of Brant’s (“County”) failure to make a decision on the Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“ZBA”) and the subsequent Plan of Subdivision Application (“PSA”) for the property municipally known as 70 and 72 Beverly Street West (“Site”).

2Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Parties, in advance of the merit hearing, advising that the settlement on the issues has been reached and the Parties were making a request to the Tribunal that the merit hearing be converted to a hearing on the planning merits of the settlement proposal.

3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a written hearing on the terms of the settlement.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

4When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(11) and s. 51(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”), the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and, in this case, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). In this particular matter, the Tribunal must take under consideration conformity to the County’s Official Plan (“COP”), the St. George Area Study (“Area Study”) and the Country’s Official Plan Amendment No. 8 (“OPA 8”).

5In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Application is in the public interest and represents good land use planning.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURROUNDING AREA

6The Site consists of two plots of land, 70 and 72 Beverly Street. The Site is located in the southwest quadrant of St. George, at the intersection of Beverly Street and Main Street. The Site is of irregular shape with a frontage of approximately 52.8 metres (“m”) on Beverly Street and varying depths of approximately 520 m. The total Site size is approximately 8.8 hectares (“ha”). The Site generally slopes from northwest to southwest by a total height of 12 m. A 1-to 2-m wide tributary of Fairchild Creek through a small valley on the west and southern portion of the property.

7To the north of the Site are one-and two-storey single detached dwellings. To the east and south of the Site, are agricultural uses and to the west is one single detached dwelling fronting onto Beverly Street.

8A public school is located on the north side of Beverly Street and the St. George Arena is located approximately 475 m north of the Site.

9The applications date back to November 2015, when the pre-application package was submitted to the County for consideration. The application included 35 single detached dwellings, one block for multiple residential purposes, a mixed-use block, an open space block and one block for future development.

10On March 19, 2018, applications for the ZBA and PSA were submitted with similar uses as the pre-application package. On April 10, 2018, the applications were deemed complete and circulated for commentary. On July 3, 2018, the applications were presented to the County’s Planning Advisory Committee for information purposes. The Applications were appealed to the former Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) where the applications were put on hold by LPAT. During the time these applications were on hold at LPAT, the County’s OPA 8 was approved by the County and was appealed to the LPAT. OPA 8 provided further policies to ensure an efficient development of St. George and would implement the Area Study. The LPAT approved OPA 8 on November 20, 2020.

11Once the decision on OPA 8 was finalized by LPAT, the applications were reactivated on the County level and a new submission was made on July 6, 2021. This new submission included a revised PSA based on the circulation comments and planning analysis from OPA 8.

12On June 8, 2022, another submission was completed to the County. This submission included revisions based on the commentary received from the 2021 submission and circulation. On July 25, 2022, the Applicant appealed the Applications to the OLT due to a lack of a decision by the County.

THE HEARING

13Before the Tribunal was the following document, which was entered as an Exhibit:

• Exhibit 1 - Final Joint Document Brief

14Included in the Exhibit were the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Witness Statement of Brenda Khes and the proposed Draft Order.

15After review of the Exhibit, the Tribunal qualifies Ms. Khes as an expert in the area of land use planning pertaining to this matter.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

16The Applications before the Tribunal include a revised ZBA and PSA. The ZBA revises the zoning from “A” “Agricultural” and “R2” “Residential”, which includes single detached and semi-detached dwellings. The ZBA revisions would allow for single detached dwellings, a mixed-use block, a pedestrian trail access block and a block for the protection of natural heritage. The specific changes to the ZBA are as follows:

• Holding Provision Special Exception Residential Singles (h-R1-X);
• Holding Provision Special Exception Residential Multiple High Density (h-RM3-22);
• Holding Provision Special Exception Residential Multiple High Density (h-RM3-XX);
• Natural Heritage (NH); and,
• Special Exception Natural Heritage NH-10 Zone.

17It was the opinion of Ms. Khes that these requested changes will allow for the development of the PSA including 33 lots for single detached dwellings, one block of high-density townhouses, one block for mixed-use, one block for a public trail, and four blocks for public street access.

Planning Instruments Before the Tribunal

18The Planning Instruments would revise the Site to the designation of “Residential Singles R1-52” for the single detached dwellings and rezone the townhouse block to “Density RM3-28 Zone”. Other requested zoning changes include a “Natural Heritage (NH) Zone”, a “Recreational Facilities (OS2) Zone” and a “Heritage System (NH-10) Zone”.

19The PSA includes a “H” holding provision to the entire Site until the conditions of the PSA have been met. It was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the proposed ZBA and PSA before the Tribunal are appropriate and allow for a responsible development of the lands.

Planning Context

20With regard to the planning instruments before the Tribunal, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the instruments are consistent or comply with the legislative acts that apply to these Applications. Ms. Khes took the Tribunal through the specific legislative requirements that pertained to the Applications.

Planning Act (“Act”)

21Ms. Khes gave her opinion that the Applications do have proper regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Applications have regard to the following items included in s. 2 but not limited to:

a) The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; b) The projection of the agricultural resources of the Province; c) The conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base; d) The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; e) The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; i) h.1)the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;

22In Ms. Khes’ opinion, the Applications ensure protection to a “Natural Heritage System” ensuring the protection of significant woodland features. The Applications provide mitigation measures and monitoring of the said natural heritage system and water resource features. The Applications are within an area that has been designated for urban growth and will add anywhere from 96 to 120 housing units to the County’s housing supply. The Site’s location is within St. George’s designated urban area and will optimize the use of the existing public services including public schools, parks, recreational facilities and proposed municipal services. Ms. Khes reaffirmed that the Applications have regard to matters of Provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”)

23Concerning the PPS, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the Applications are consistent with the PPS by meeting policies inter alia such as s. 1.1.1 pertaining to Healthy and liveable communities, s. 1.1.3.1 pertaining to Settlement Areas, s. 1.1.3.2 pertaining to Land use patterns, s. 1.4.3 pertaining to appropriate ranges and mixes of housing and s. 1.6 pertaining to Municipal services. Ms. Khes’ opinion is that the Applications support long-term economic prosperity by optimizing land uses and the existing and planned municipal services while protecting natural heritage areas including woodlands located on and adjacent to the Site.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”)

24With regards to the Growth Plan, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the Applications conform to the Growth Plan by meeting the requirements Policy 1.2.1 concerning how land is developed, managed and protected, Policy 2.1 concerning the optimization of existing urban land supply, Policy 2.2.2 concerning Delineated built-up Areas, and Policy 3.2 concerning efficient use of public infrastructure to support growth and integrated planning.

Country of Brant Official Plan (“COP”) and Official Plan Amendment No. 8 (“OPA 8”)

25Ms. Khes gave her opinion that the Applications represent a logical and efficient extension of the County’s services and will avoid any large tracts of land from being “trapped” between existing urban development areas. Ms. Khes gave her opinion that the Applications are in a Prime Urban Settlement Area and this Prime Settlement Area will remain an area of focus and growth until 2031. Policy 2.2.4 of the COP requires residential growth in the completion of an Area Plan to establish densities that will meet designated Greenfield density targets. Ms. Khes opined that the Applications, specifically, the PSA demonstrates how the residential growth will occur.

26As for OPA 8, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that OPA 8 implements a clear servicing strategy, which allows for a controlled development to occur on the Site. OPA 8 includes specific policies that employ a controlled allocation of servicing through development approvals and phasing for the Site’s development. It was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the phasing policies included in OPA 8 represents that appropriate, controlled development will occur on the Site contiguously with the expansion of the County’s services. OPA 8 introduces a mix of housing policies for any development, including the Applications before the Tribunal. This mix of housing must include a range of the following housing options:

(i) Single and semi-detached units – 60% to 70% (ii) Townhouse units – 10% to 20% (iii) Multiple units (e.g. stacked townhouse, apartments) – 10% to 20%

27In Ms. Khes’ opinion, the Applications do allow for these housing options to be met, as such, the Applications conform to the OP and OPA 8.

28Concerning OPA 8 Transportation Policies, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the Applications conform to the specific policies including provisions concerning road networks, the proposed pedestrian and cycling network, which capitalizes on natural heritage features.

29Regarding the OPA 8 Natural Heritage Policies, Ms. Khes opined that the Applications conform to the modified C-2 Area Study including the completed Scoped Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), which demonstrated that no negative impacts would result to the natural heritage system as a result of the Applications. Ms. Khes noted that the Grand River Conservation Authority (“GRCA”) recommended in the Area Study that a 10-m buffer be established from the woodland dripline to adequately protect the Significant Woodland and associated Significant Wildlife Habitat. In Ms. Khes’ opinion, the revised PSA before the Tribunal demonstrates the recommended 10-m buffer that will be implemented thus satisfies the concerns of the GRCA.

30Adjacent to the Site are two existing propane facilities of the western side of St. George. These facilities are subject to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (“TSSA”). Concerning the risk associated with these two facilities, the Risk Contour Study was completed in March 2017, demonstrated to the risk of having a residential development within 340 m of the closest propane facility would result in a one-in-a-million worst-case scenario. It was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the risk involved with the Applications concerning the two propane facilities generally conform to the policies of the COP and OPA 8.

Overall Opinion

31It was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the Applications before the Tribunal have regard of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act. The Applications have demonstrated their consistency with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.

32Additionally, it was Ms. Khes’ opinion that the Applications before the Tribunal conform to the COP including the OPA 8. The proposed Applications are in the public interest as they provide needed housing supply to the County and the Applications represent good land use planning.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

33The Tribunal has reviewed the materials of the Applications and the land instruments presented. Based on the uncontroverted evidence in support of the Applications presented by Ms. Khes, the Tribunal agrees with the professional opinions of Ms. Khes pertaining to the planning instruments presented.

34The Tribunal finds that the Applications and planning instruments presented to the Tribunal are a matter of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

35The Tribunal finds that the planning instruments as presented are consistent with the PPS. The planning instruments conform to the Growth Plan and conforms to the COP and OPA 8.

36The Tribunal finds that the planning instruments are appropriate, are in the public interest and represent good land use planning. The Tribunal finds that the planning instruments should be approved in the form presented to the Tribunal.

ORDER

37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed in part and the County of Brant By-law No. 61-16 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the County of Brant to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed and the Draft Plan of Subdivision shown on the plan prepared by GSP Group dated September 28, 2023, comprising of 70 and 72 Beverly Street West, in the County of Brant is approved as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

39AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to section 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Brant shall have the authority to clear the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval as set out in Attachment 3 and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of section 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event there are any difficulties implementing any Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the Draft Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“S. deBoer”

S. DEboer 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