Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood Reference Number: OZS19-016 Property Address: 35, 40 & 55 Silvercreek Parkway South Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000548 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000548 OLT Case Name: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood Reference Number: OZS19-016 Property Address: 35, 40 & 55 Silvercreek Parkway South Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000549 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood Reference Number: OZS19-016 Property Address: 35, 40 & 55 Silvercreek Parkway South Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000550 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000548
Heard: January 15, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. (Appellant / Applicant) | Tom Halinski Naomi Mares |
| City of Guelph (“City”) | Peter Pickfield Max Reedijk |
| Canadian National Railway Company | Michael James |
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION and background
1This appeal involves a prominent 16.52-hectare parcel of brownfield lands in the City where Lafarge Canada Inc. formerly operated a gravel quarry and cement plant
These lands are located west of the downtown area, bounded by the Hanlon Parkway to the west, the CN Railway main line to the north, and by the Guelph Exeter Railway secondary rail line to the south.
2In December 2019, applications were submitted for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of the property into a mixed-use neighbourhood. At that time, the proposal consisted of three apartment buildings comprising residential units, two (2) mixed-use blocks comprising additional residential units and commercial spaces, plus townhouses, an urban square, and a large neighbourhood park. The applications were deemed complete and went through a number of revisions in response to City and public comments. However, the City did not make a decision on the applications, which has led to the present appeal.
3Since filing the appeal, the Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) was added as a Party due to obvious proximity interest and associated rail-safety concerns, and the Appellant and the City have continued to work together on further revisions in pursuit of a common vision for the property.
4In November 2024, the work undertaken by the Parties resulted in a new jointly- accepted proposal which would facilitate the creation of 660 residential units consisting of 118 street townhouses, 59 dual frontage townhouses, 70 back-to-back townhouses, 204 residential apartment units and 209 residential units within mixed-use buildings, 3,250 square metres of commercial space, 2 natural heritage blocks, 1 open-space block, 1 park block, a stormwater management facility, walkways, streets, and a municipal road (collectively, the “final revised proposal”). The final revised proposal further led to an agreement with respect to the form and content of a new jointly-proposed OPA (see: Attachment 1), ZBA (except as noted below; see: Attachment 2), Draft Plan of Subdivision (see: Attachment 3), and accompanying conditions of draft approval (except as noted below; see: Attachment 4).
5The Parties have agreed on everything associated with said planning instruments except the form and content of a Holding provision within the ZBA and two conditions of draft approval (numbers 8 and 70) proposed by the City. However, the Parties explained to the Tribunal that they continue to engage in further settlement discussions, and may engage in mediation, to attempt to resolve these outstanding matters.
6Nevertheless, in an effort to move the matter forward, the Parties have come to the Tribunal seeking approval of the agreed-upon aspects of the proposed OPA, ZBA, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Evidence in support of this partial settlement was provided by Hugh Handy (“Expert Handy”), who was duly qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in Land Use Planning.
7Additionally, the Parties are jointly seeking Hearing dates to deal with the above-noted outstanding matters, in the event that such matters cannot otherwise be settled.
8Lastly, before examining the Parties’ current proposal, the Tribunal notes that no one attended the Hearing on behalf of the Howitt Park Neighbourhood Residents Association (“HPNRA”). The HPNRA was added as a Party at the September 19, 2023, Case Management Conference. The Tribunal notes that this is the second Hearing event at which the residents’ association did not attend without explanation, those being all of the Hearing events since the HPNRA was granted status. Given the inherent expectation that a Party participate fully in a matter as a condition of it being granted status, the Tribunal hereby revokes the HPNRA’s Party status going forward.
Proposed Planning Instruments
9The proposed OPA, attached hereto as Attachment 1, would remove the existing land use designations and redesignate the site to “High Density Residential”, “Medium Density Residential”, “Neighbourhood Commercial Centre”, “Open Space” and “Significant Natural Areas” and “Natural Areas” pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Official Plan and would add site-specific policies pertaining to the Class 4 Noise Classification for the entire site, and minimum commercial space requirements and maximum residential density within the Neighbourhood Commercial Centre designation.
10The proposed ZBA, attached hereto as Attachment 2, would rezone the Site to High Density Residential 7 [RH.7-23(PA)], Specialized High Density Residential 7 [RH.7-24(PA)], Medium Density Residential 5 [RM.5], Specialized Medium Density Residential 5 [RM.5-4], Specialized Medium Density Residential 5 [RM.5-5], Specialized Medium Density Residential 5 [RM.5-6], Specialized Neighbourhood Commercial Centre [NCC-19(PA)], Specialized Neighbourhood Commercial Centre [NCC-20(PA)], Specialized Neighbourhood Commercial Centre [NCC- 21(PA)], Open Space (OS), Neighbourhood Park (NP) and Natural Heritage System (NHS) Zone, with the form and content of the Holding provision still to be determined.
11The Draft Plan of Subdivision is illustrated at Attachment 3. The Draft Plan Conditions are set out at Attachment 4, noting that the form and content of Conditions 8 and 70 are still to be determined. The Parties explained that rail-related noise concerns have been addressed through technical work and specific mitigation measures as secured through a CN Development Agreement to be registered on title. Also of note, railway crossing upgrades will be required, to be dealt with later as set out in Condition 156. The Parties confirmed that addressing such issues has satisfied CN’s concerns, and CN does not otherwise take a position in the matter.
Evidence and Analysis
12The Tribunal heard both factual and opinion evidence from Expert Handy. In summary, he testified that the final revised proposal:
will provide a mix of housing as well as neighbourhood commercial development;
features density that will be focused on Silvercreek Parkway and along the neighbourhood park, creating a synergy between uses, and that sidewalks and walkways will also provide for an accessible connection from the subdivision area to both the park and commercial amenities;
provides a compact development that will contribute to the housing objectives and policies of both the province and City, including adding to a diverse housing supply in the City;
represents a well-designated built form that is compatible with the surrounding land uses and existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, and which will further create a gateway to the City;
represents a scale, density and mix of uses on an appropriately located site that will support existing and future transit and active transportation opportunities; and
can be serviced through proposed connections to the existing sanitary, water, and stormwater infrastructure.
13Upon this evidence, Expert Handy opined that, subject to resolution of the outstanding issues with respect to the Holding provision and Draft Plan Conditions, the final revised proposal has adequate regard to the relevant matters of Provincial interest set out at s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the associated policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), and is in conformity with the related policies of the City of Guelph Official Plan (both the current 2024 version and the 2018 version that was in effect when the application was originally made to the City). He further opined that the final revised proposal is in the public interest and represents good planning.
14The Tribunal accepts the factual and opinion evidence of Expert Handy and comes to the same conclusions. The Tribunal further finds that the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision has appropriate regard for the criteria under Section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
HEARING of outstanding issues
15Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal set a five-day (5-day) hearing to deal with the above-mentioned outstanding issues, proceeding by video commencing on Monday, July 21, 2025 at 10 a.m.
16Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins, to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077
Access code: 927-921-077
17Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
18Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 927-921-077.
19Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
interim ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
the appeal pursuant to subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan for the City of Guelph is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;
the appeal pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and By-law Number (2023)-20790 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, save and except for the outstanding matters in paragraph 5 below. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Guelph to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes;
the appeal pursuant to subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and the draft plan prepared by GSP Group dated November 5, 2024, as set out at Attachment 3, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Order, save and except the outstanding matters in paragraph 5 below;
pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Guelph 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;
The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order pending:
a. technical corrections with respect to Conditions 59, 60, 102 and 103 of Draft Plan Approval, as noted on Attachment 4; and
b. the resolution of the Holding provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment, noted as outstanding on Attachment 2; and
c. the resolution of Conditions 8 and 70 of Draft Plan Approval, noted as outstanding on Attachment 4;
Minor technical corrections to Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4, if confirmed by all parties, shall be permitted without a further Order;
A Hearing with respect to the matters in paragraph 5(b) and 5(c) shall take place in accordance with the details set out above in the decision. With respect to this Hearing, the parties shall file a draft Procedural Order with the Tribunal on or before Thursday, May 1, 2025, for the Member’s approval; and
The Tribunal may be spoken to concerning any issues arising from the implementation of this Interim Order or prior to the issuance of its Final Order.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
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.