Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 04, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002958
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Bridgebrook Corporation
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: OPA/ZBA/Subdivision to facilitate the development of a 588-unit residential plan of subdivision
Reference Number: OPA 66
Property Address: 7370 Centre Road
Municipality/UT: Uxbridge/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002958
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002958
OLT Case Name: Bridgebrook Corporation v Uxbridge (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: OPA/ZBA/Subdivision to facilitate the development of a 588-unit residential plan of subdivision
Reference Number: ZBA 2021-03
Property Address: 7370 Centre Road
Municipality/UT: Uxbridge/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002959
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002958
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: OPA/ZBA/Subdivision to facilitate the development of a 588-unit residential plan of subdivision
Reference Number: ROPA 2021-005
Property Address: 7370 Centre Road
Municipality/UT: Uxbridge/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003735
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002958
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: OPA/ZBA/Subdivision to facilitate the development of a 588-unit residential plan of subdivision
Reference Number: S-U-2021-01
Property Address: 7370 Centre Road
Municipality/UT: Uxbridge/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003736
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002958
Heard: January 15, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Bridgebrook Corporation
M. Flowers G. O’Brien
Regional Municipality of Durham
K. Ryan R. Woon
Township of Uxbridge
M. Joblin
825665 Ontario Inc., 1855040 Ontario Inc., 1922889 Ontario Inc., and 1409666 Ontario Inc.
J. Shapira
South Reach Developments Limited
R. Cheeseman
Mason Homes Limited
J. Lanctot J. Doris
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON JANUARY 15, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This matter involves a settlement hearing related to appeals filed by Bridgebrook Corporation (“Applicant”/“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7), 34(11), and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the failure of the Township of Uxbridge (“Township”) and the Regional Municipality of Durham (“Region”) to make decisions within the statutory time frame regarding the Appellant’s Regional Official Plan (“ROP”) Amendment and Township Official Plan (“TOP”) Amendment (respectively “ROPA” and “TOPA”) applications, as well as Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications (collectively “Applications”) relating to the property within the urban area of Uxbridge municipally known as 7370 Centre Road, and legally described as Part Lot 33 Concession 6, Uxbridge, Parts 1 and 2 Plan 40R30844, Township of Uxbridge (“Property”).
2The purpose of the Applications is to allow for the development of the Property with 541 detached, link, and townhouse dwelling units (revised from the originally proposed 588 units) (“Revised DPS”), as well as a multi-unit housing block, a parkette, open space, and stormwater management facilities (“Proposed Development”).
3The Property is approximately 40 hectares and is located within, and at the north end of, the Uxbridge Urban Area. The Property has frontage on both Concession Road 6 and Centre Road and is vacant of structures, with the existing use being primarily agricultural fields of annual row crops separated by cultural hedgerows, and environmental areas.
4The surrounding area is characterized by low-density residential subdivisions to the south, agricultural lands to the west and north, and a low-density residential subdivision and agricultural lands to the east.
5The Property is designated ‘Special Study Area #6’ in the ROP, ‘Future Residential Area’ in the TOP, and is zoned ‘Rural’ in the Township Zoning By-law 81-19.
6The Applications were filed on April 9, 2021, with the ROPA and DPS applications being deemed complete by the Region on May 7, 2021, and the TOPA and ZBA applications being deemed complete by the Township on May 11, 2021 with statutory public meetings held on September 7, 2021 at the Region and on October 25, 2021 at the Township. The Applications were appealed to the Tribunal on March 16, 2022.
7At the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on September 1, 2022, the Tribunal granted Party status to 825665 Ontario Inc., 1855040 Ontario Inc., 1922889 Ontario Inc., and 1409666 Ontario Inc. (collectively “Headwater Farms”), Mason Homes Limited (“Mason Homes”), and South Reach Developments Limited (“South Reach”).
8Participant status was granted to Trevor Winter at the CMC, and the CMC Decision noted that Mr. Winter had made an oral request for Participant status. No written Participant statement was subsequently received by the Tribunal from Mr. Winter, and therefore, there were no participant issues to address in the consideration of the Applications.
9Subsequent to the appeal of the Applications, the Township and the Region endorsed the approval of the Applications through the signing of Minutes of Settlement by all statutory Parties (“Settlement”). Headwater Farms, Mason Homes, and South Reach all confirmed in writing their agreement to the Settlement with Headwater Farms’ agreement conditional on three additional conditions of Draft Plan Approval (“DPA”), which were amenable to all Parties.
10The Tribunal received correspondence from the Appellant in advance of the hearing, advising that the Parties had settled the issues and requesting that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a Settlement Hearing. The Parties sought approval of the proposed ROPA, TOPA, ZBA, and Revised DPS, with associated conditions of DPA (“Conditions”), submitted as part of the Settlement.
11In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
12When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 22(7), 34(11), and 51(34) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act, and the Revised DPS shall have regard to the criteria in s. 51(24) 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”) and the Greenbelt Plan (2017) (“Greenbelt Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the ROP and the TOP.
13In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications represent good land use planning and are in the public interest.
WITNESS
14Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the Affidavit of Matthew Cory in support of the Settlement. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Cory, on consent, to provide expert opinion evidence pertaining to this matter in the area of land use planning.
LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE
15Mr. Cory provided background information on the Property, the surrounding area, the proposed use, and the history and processing of the Applications.
16With respect to the regulatory and policy context, Mr. Cory opined that the Applications have regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, and are in conformity with the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the ROP, and the TOP.
THE PLANNING ACT
17Mr. Cory opined that the Applications have regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, and in particular, subsections:
(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions – as all natural features are zoned to be protected;
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest – as an archaeological assessment was undertaken and no significant features were found;
(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water – as the development is planned for a modern, efficient housing form with an appropriate road pattern, resulting in the minimization of energy usage;
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems – as there are adequate options for all of those systems to be provided and no comments were received from the commenting agencies regarding any deficiencies;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, and (h.1) the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies – as these matters were considered through the Application review process with the Township, the Region and the commenting agencies. The layout of the subdivision is safe and accessible with sidewalks, the proposed park is central to the development, the majority of the units are grade-related, and the multi-unit housing will potentially have elevators;
(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities – as all commenting departments and agencies were satisfied with the service levels provided;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing – as with the relative mix of housing unit types, the Proposed Development is denser than, yet still compatible with, the surrounding land uses. In addition, the multi-unit housing block provides for the potential for affordable housing to be provided;
(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities – as the ROP and TOP servicing policies and the Conditions appropriately protect both the Region and the Township;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development – as the Property is within the Uxbridge urban boundary;
(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians – there is limited transit in Uxbridge, but the Proposed Development might help foster additional transit in Uxbridge;
(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 – as the built form will be subject to architectural control and the multi-unit housing will be subject to site plan control. In addition, the zoning standards are contemporary, and a sense of place will be created largely by the centralization of the parkette and the trails in the Natural Heritage System, which provide linkages to the adjacent development to the south; and
(s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate – as the sizing of the stormwater management ponds (“SWMPs”), will protect the provincial interest regarding climate change.
18With respect to the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act, Mr. Cory opined that the Revised DPS has appropriate regard for the criteria as follow:
(a) it ensures conformity with growth management, and natural heritage, among other matters;
(b) it has been thoroughly assessed, is appropriately supported by sufficient technical studies, will be subject to the Conditions, is in the public interest based on the policy analysis, and is not premature;
(c) it conforms to both the TOP and the ROP, subject to the proposed ROPA and TOPA, is adjacent to developed subdivisions, allows for logical continuation of development, and maintains the integrity and character of the existing community in a more contemporary form;
(d) it is located on lands suitable for the proposed uses, as supported by the submitted technical studies;
(d.1) it provides a multi-unit housing block with the potential to provide opportunities for affordable housing in the Township;
(e) it provides two access roads that connect to the adjacent collector roads, and the proposed street and right-of-way standards are appropriate, as supported by the Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”);
(f) the proposed lots are of an appropriate shape and size, and conform to the proposed zoning standards in the proposed ZBA, which are also appropriate;
(g) the proposed ZBA will limit the use of the Property to the uses permitted by the zoning standards;
(h) it will protect and conserve the natural features in conformity with the PPS, ROP, and TOP by proposing two SWMPs to mitigate the effects of water runoff and by preserving the Natural Heritage System;
(i) it will be serviced with adequate utilities and municipal services through upgrades, expansions, and extensions from adjacent lands, as demonstrated in the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared in support of the Applications (“FSSR”). Sanitary servicing capacity is still to be determined and is subject to allocation by the Township, as provided for in the conditions of the holding symbols and the Conditions;
(j) the school boards have reviewed the Proposed Development and have determined that the school sites are adequate and no additional school site is required;
(k) the land within the Natural Heritage System blocks on the Revised DPS will be conveyed into public ownership, inclusive of all the associated buffers;
(l) it promotes energy conservation by promoting a compact design that encourages active transportation; and
(m) the design of the townhome development and multi-unit housing is to be facilitated through Site Plan Control, if applicable.
19Mr. Cory advised that the Revised DPS is subject to the Conditions, which are largely standard in nature, and appropriately reflect the legal and financial obligations of the Applicant. He added that the Conditions deal with such matters as the protection of the natural heritage features and the conveyance of the lands associated with these features into public ownership, the implementation of the proposed ZBA, grading, servicing infrastructure, and other engineering-related matters. It was his opinion that the Revised DPS and Conditions are reasonable and have appropriate regard for the matters in subsection 51(24) of the Act.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
20Mr. Cory proffered that, as per policy 1.1.3.1 of the PPS, settlement areas are to be the focus of growth and development, and the Proposed Development is consistent with the PPS in this regard as the Property is within the Uxbridge Urban Area.
21With respect to policy 1.1.3.2 of the PPS, which requires the land use pattern within settlement areas to be based on densities and a range and mix of uses that efficiently use land and resources, optimize the use of existing and planned infrastructure, and support active and public transportation, Mr. Cory opined that the Proposed Development makes efficient use of land and infrastructure. He added that the Proposed Development promotes active transportation through a development pattern that is pedestrian-friendly, achieved with a “grid pattern street system”, pedestrian facilities, and convenient access to parks and open spaces.
22Consistent with policy 1.4.3 of the PPS, requiring planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities, Mr. Cory advised that the Proposed Development assists the Township in accommodating residential growth in a Designated Greenfield Area within the Uxbridge Urban Area, promotes a range and mix of housing types and densities in the area, and achieves a density that is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding community.
23Mr. Cory advised that the Proposed Development is consistent with the housing policies in section 1.4 of the PPS as it provides alternative forms of housing, including single-detached, linked dwellings, and townhouses, and a block for multi-unit housing where the majority of the housing stock in the Township is comprised of single-detached homes.
24With respect to the natural heritage policies of section 2.1 of the PPS requiring natural features and areas to be protected for the long term, Mr. Cory advised that the significant natural heritage features are protected in accordance with the findings of the Environmental Impact Study undertaken for the Proposed Development.
25It was Mr. Cory’s opinion that the Proposed Development is consistent with the PPS by making efficient use of designated urban lands within the settlement limits of the Township and providing an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities.
GROWTH PLAN
26Mr. Cory noted that the Property is within the Designated Greenfield Area (“DGA”) on Schedule 4 of the Growth Plan and that development within DGAs are to be planned, designated, zoned, and designed in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities, supports active transportation, and encourages the integration and sustained viability of transit services as per policy 2.2.7.1. It was his opinion that the Proposed Development “achieves a density of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare, therefore conforming to the minimum density policies for DGAs and assisting the Region and the Township in achieving their growth targets”.
27Regarding the housing policies in section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan, Mr. Cory noted that they support the achievement of complete communities and housing choice through the achievement of minimum density targets by identifying, among other things, a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities. It was his opinion that the Proposed Development “conforms with the housing policies of the Growth Plan by contributing to diversifying the range and mix of housing types available in the Township” and “increases access to opportunities for home ownership”.
28It was Mr. Cory’s opinion that the Proposed Development conforms with the Growth Plan as it provides appropriately scaled residential development in a designated Settlement Area, while protecting the key natural heritage features on the Property.
GREENBELT PLAN
29Mr. Cory advised that the Property is designated ‘Towns/Villages’ within the ‘Protected Countryside’ in the Greenbelt Plan and that ‘Towns/Villages’ are considered settlement areas and are intended to have the largest concentrations of population, employment, and development within the ‘Protected Countryside’. Further, he advised that section 3.4.3 of the Greenbelt Plan deems that ‘Towns/Villages’ are subject to the policies of the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans and are not subject to the policies of the Greenbelt Plan, except for sections 3.1.5, 3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.3, and 3.4.2, which he reviewed and determined are not applicable to the Proposed Development.
30Mr. Cory noted that stormwater management infrastructure is permitted within the Greenbelt Plan area but, as per policy 4.2.3.3, is prohibited in key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features, and their associated vegetation protection zones. He proffered that the proposed stormwater management facility is to be located outside key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features, in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan.
31It was Mr. Cory’s opinion that the Proposed Development conforms with the applicable policies of the Greenbelt Plan.
REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
32Mr. Cory submitted that the ROP designates the Property as ‘Special Study Area 6’ within the urban boundary of the Township and that the designation “requires further studies, after which appropriate designations shall be adopted by amendment” to the ROP. He advised that, in accordance with policy 7.3.7 of the ROP, the development of the Property is restricted due to servicing capacity constraints, will be considered for development without the need for a comprehensive review of the ROP, will have priority over expansions to the Uxbridge Urban Area, and will be allocated any additional servicing capacity, in accordance with the TOP.
33As such, Mr. Cory advised that the ROPA seeks to redesignate the lands within Special Study Areas 5 and 6, which includes the Property, to ‘Specific Policy Area D’ in order to allow development to occur on the Property, subject to servicing capacity, without the requirement of another ROPA.
34Mr. Cory noted that in redesignating the Property, policy 12.1.3 of the ROP requires that consideration shall be given to the amount and rate of development that has occurred within the Living Areas designation, and the availability of servicing. He advised that the Property “represents one of the last remaining vacant properties of this size within the Uxbridge urban boundary that is adjacent to existing development and can accommodate this scale and variety of ground-oriented housing”. He furthered that the development of the Property “minimizes land consumption and servicing costs by making efficient use of vacant land in an area where servicing connections can be provided with upgrades, expansions and extensions to existing infrastructure”.
35With respect to sanitary servicing, Mr. Cory submitted that the FSSR identified options to service the Proposed Development “through upgrades, expansions and extensions to existing municipal sanitary systems, and subject to servicing being allocated by the Township and the Region”. He advised that further detailed analysis on servicing capacity will be conducted as part of the draft plan registration process, and servicing allocation will be one of the conditions of removing the holding provisions in the ZBA, in addition to the Conditions related to ensuring sufficient sanitary servicing capacity is available.
36With respect to water servicing, Mr. Cory advised that the FSSR demonstrates that there will likely be sufficient capacity in the water system to service the Proposed Development “through future expansions and extensions to existing municipal water systems, should servicing be allocated by the Township and the Region”. He furthered that options have been identified to provide municipal services to the Property, subject to servicing being allocated by the Township and the Region, “which supports the proposal to redesignate the Subject Lands to Specific Policy Area D in the Regional OP”.
37It was Mr. Cory’s opinion that the Proposed Development “will make efficient use of existing municipal water and wastewater connections through future upgrades, expansions and extensions to service the Subject Lands if servicing is allocated by the Township” and that “the proposed ROPA is appropriate and represents good planning in the public interest”.
TOWNSHIP OFFICIAL PLAN
38Mr. Cory noted that the Property is currently designated ‘Future Residential Area’ on Schedule ‘A’ of the TOP and ‘Phase 2’ on Schedule ‘D’ of the TOP. He advised that policy 2.5.7.1 of the TOP requires a TOPA in addition to a ROPA, and that the TOPA proposes to redesignate all lands within the ‘Future Residential Area’ designation on Schedule ‘A’ to ‘Evolving Neighbourhood Area’ and remove the Phase 1 and 2 designations from Schedule ‘D’ of the Township OP, allowing for the Proposed Development.
39Mr. Cory submitted that the ‘Future Residential Area’ designation permits low-density residential and medium-density residential uses, allowing for single-detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, townhouses, stacked townhouses, and low-rise apartments, with a maximum height of three storeys, provided the phasing policies of the TOP are satisfied. He advised that the Proposed Development provides for single-detached, link, and townhouse dwellings in accordance with the maximum height provision.
40Mr. Cory stated that the TOP phasing policies divide the Urban Area into Phase 1 and Phase 2 lands and provide that development within the Phase 1 area “should be progressing and there should be sufficient sewage capacity prior to considering any residential development on Phase 2 lands”. With reference to policy 2.2.7.2.ii) of the TOP, he advised that the Township may consider development applications for Phase 2 lands when: “a) there is sufficient additional sewage capacity for the Proposed Development, as well as for all potential development in the Phase 1 lands; and, b) 65% of the major vacant development sites in Phase 1 have been registered for development”. He asserted that “options have been identified for sanitary servicing”, as evidenced in his review of the ROP, and that policy 2.2.7.2.ii) of the TOP can be satisfied.
41Section 3.3 of the TOP provides criteria to have regard to for the review of a TOPA. Mr. Cory opined that the TOPA conforms to the criteria as follows:
i) Regarding the need for the proposed use – The Proposed Development provides additional housing opportunities during the housing supply crisis and aids the Township in achieving a mix of unit types while addressing the Policy directive for the efficient use of land and infrastructure;
ii) Regarding the existing development in the proposed designations – The TOP encourages a range and mix of housing types and sizes within the Urban Area. The surrounding community currently does not provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of all future residents. The Proposed Development contributes to more diverse housing types and helps to contribute to the creation of a complete community;
iii) Regarding the physical suitability of the land for the proposed use – The soils can support the Proposed Development, and, through the implementation of low impact development stormwater techniques, the Property will be able to support the proposed use;
iv) Regarding:
a) The adequacy of the existing and proposed road system – The TIS concluded that the transportation requirements can be adequately met by the road system;
b) The convenience and accessibility of the site for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety – The TIS concluded that the proposed road accesses to the Proposed Development will be sufficient for vehicular traffic.
c) The adequacy and availability of municipal water and sewage facilities, and other municipal services – The FSSR concluded that the Proposed Development can be potentially serviced through upgrades, expansions, and extensions to existing municipal water and wastewater services. Sanitary servicing capacity is still to be determined and will be subject to allocation by the Township. This is reflected in the conditions of the holding symbols and the Conditions.
v) Regarding the compatibility of the proposed use with uses in the surrounding area – The Proposed Development is a continuation of the ground-related form of housing development to the south and will protect key natural heritage features on the Property; and
vi) Regarding the potential effect of the use on the financial position of the Township and the Region – The Proposed Development will increase the residential tax base and will not require significant public investments in municipal and regional infrastructure. Some infrastructure improvements will be made by the owner, and other infrastructure will be funded through development charges. It is therefore not expected to have an adverse effect on the financial position of the Township and the Region.
42It was the opinion of Mr. Cory that “the Tribunal can consider approval of the TOPA application on the basis that it conforms to the items in Policy 3.3” and “the proposed TOPA is appropriate and represents good planning in the public interest”.
ZONING BY-LAW
43As submitted by Mr. Cory, the ZBA proposes to rezone the Property from ‘Rural’ to the following site-specific exception zones to provide for the development of the Property in conjunction with the Revised DPS:
Holding Residential Second Density Exception No. 33 ((H)R2-33) Zone;
Holding Multiple Density Exception No. 26 ((H)RM-26) Zone;
Holding Multiple Density Exception No. 27 ((H)RM-27) Zone;
Holding Recreational Exception No. 2 ((H) RE-2) Zone; and
Environmental Protection Exception No. 73 (EP-73) Zone.
44Mr. Cory proffered that the zoning standards reflect modern and contemporary building forms that are utilized in other parts of the Township. He further explained that the holding symbols contained in the ZBA would require the following criteria to be met prior to being removed, to ensure any outstanding technical matters and servicing allocation are adequately addressed prior to development being permitted on the Property:
The Township has approved the servicing allocation;
All required studies are completed to the satisfaction of the Township;
The subdivision and/or condominium agreements have been financially secured and executed; and
All necessary approvals from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority have been received.
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
45Mr. Cory opined that the Revised DPS “represents good planning as it provides for an appropriate built form, housing type and land use mix and a logical and efficient road pattern” and “protects the natural heritage features and their associated buffers within an environmental protection block”, thereby implementing the intent of the policies of the ROP and TOP.
CONCLUSIONS
46It was Mr. Cory’s opinion that the Proposed Development has regard for matters of provincial interest under the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the policies and intent of the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the ROP, and the TOP, as proposed to be amended. He further opined that the proposed ROPA, TOPA, ZBA, and Revised DPS, subject to the Conditions, “represents good planning in the public interest as it provides an appropriate form of development that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and will contribute to diversifying the range and mix of housing in the area”.
47Further, Mr. Cory opined that, based on his review of the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act, the Revised DPS “represents good planning as it provides for a compact built form with an appropriate form of housing and other land uses, including a public parkette and other open space, and is appropriately supported by sufficient technical studies”. He added that the approval of the Applications will result in a “logical and efficient street pattern given the configuration of the property”.
48Mr. Cory added that the Proposed Development “appropriately takes into consideration the planning context, surrounding lands, co-ordination of soft and hard services and subdivision layout” and that, in his opinion, it is appropriate and in keeping with the policy regime applicable to the Property.
49In support of the Settlement, it was his recommendation that the ROPA, TOPA, ZBA, and Revised DPS be approved, with the latter being subject to the Conditions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
50The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and evidence of Mr. Cory. In consideration of his evidence and the resulting settlement of the appeal, as supported by all Parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applications have sufficient and proper regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and the Revised DPS has regard to the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the Applications are consistent with the PPS and in conformity with the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the ROP, and the TOP.
51The Tribunal finds that the holding symbols are appropriate for the ZBA and will ensure any outstanding technical matters and servicing allocation are adequately addressed prior to development being permitted.
ORDER
52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Official Plan for the Regional Municipality of Durham is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham to assign a number to this official plan amendment for record keeping purposes.
53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the Official Plan for the Township of Uxbridge is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and Zoning By-law 81-19, as amended, of the Township of Uxbridge is amended as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Uxbridge to assign dates to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
55THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by H.F. Grander Co. Ltd. with a revision date of June 12, 2023, comprising Part Lot 33 Concession 6, Uxbridge, Parts 1 and 2 Plan 40R30844, Township of Uxbridge, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Order.
56AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act and subject to subsection 51(56.2) of the Act, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the 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.
“C. I. Molinari”
C. I. MOLINARI
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
ATTACHMENT 4