Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. v. Cambridge (City), 2025 CanLII 127706

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001042

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit residential townhouse development

Reference Number: OR07/24

Property Address: 245 Riverbank Drive

Municipality: City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001042

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001042

OLT Case Name: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. v. Cambridge (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of the application to amend the Zoning By-law.

Description: To permit residential townhouse development

Reference Number: OR07/24

Property Address: 245 Riverbank Drive

Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001043

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001042

Heard: November 24, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd.

Robert Howe

City of Cambridge

Nicole Auty

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON NOVEMBER 24, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns Appeals filed by Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Cambridge (“City”) which refused an Application for an Amendment to the Official Plan (“OPA”) and an Application to Amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) applying to the lands known municipally as 245 Riverbank Drive (“Subject Property”).

2The Appellant is proposing to redevelop the Subject Property with grade-related residential uses, including a mix of single detached dwellings and row dwellings on a private road with access from Riverbank Drive and access to Intermarket Road by way of an easement over the adjacent lands to the immediate east of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is bordered by residential estate lots to the north and west, fronting on Riverbank Drive. Along the southerly boundary of the Subject Property is the Freeport Creek, and to the east are vacant lands fronting on to Intermarket Road which are zoned for employment uses.

3The Appellant submitted the OPA and ZBA (together the “Applications”) on May 17, 2024. The City deemed the Applications complete by way of a letter dated May 21, 2024, and a Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 18, 2024. City Council considered and refused the Applications at their meeting on September 17, 2024.

4The Appellant appealed the decision of City Council pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (“Planning Act”) respectively.

5The Appellant revised their proposal in January 2025 to respond to the concerns raised at the City Council meeting. Commencing in August 2025 and the City and the Appellant entered into mediation to resolve the remaining issues. Following the mediation, the Parties reached a Settlement and Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) were executed setting, out the terms of the Settlement.

6The Tribunal was notified of the Settlement and pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal converted a hearing on the terms of the Settlement and consider the Appeal of the Applications.

SUBMISSIONS

7The Tribunal considered the viva voce and Affidavit evidence of Dan Currie, a Land Use Planner qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence.

8The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP) locates the Subject Property within the Urban Boundary Area and designates the Subject Property Urban Designated Greenfield Area, which provides for urban land uses. Mr. Currie opined that the proposal conforms to the ROP.

9The OPA proposes to amend City Official Plan (“COP”), bringing the Subject Property into the Urban Area and designating the Subject Property from Rural Residential to Low/Medium Density Residential. The southerly portion of the Subject Property, which contains the floodplain and environmental features associated with the Freeport Creek, will be designated Natural Open Space System.

10The ZBA proposes to rezone the lands to R6/RM3 with special site provisions. The R6 zoning permits single detached dwellings and the RM3 zoning permits a range of housing types including row dwellings, duplexes, triplexes and stacked townhouses to a maximum density of 40 units per hectare (“uph”).

11The site-specific provisions of the ZBA includes: a prohibition on apartment buildings which are otherwise permitted in the RM3 zone, permits up to 8 attached dwellings whereas the current zoning provisions permits a maximum of 6 attached dwellings, and specific performance standards in response to the noise mitigation measures recommended by the Noise Impact Assessment (“NIA”) and agreed upon in the MOS which includes setbacks, building heights and window and door opening restrictions.

Minutes of Settlement

12Mr. Currie explained that the Settlement reached with the City addresses the concerns relating to access and noise mitigation and included the final form of the proposed amendment to the COP and the final form of the amendment to City Zoning By-law 150-85 (“ZBL”).

13The MOS included a conceptual development plan that proposes two accesses, one on Riverbank Drive at the northwest corner of the Subject Property and the second access to Intermarket Road at the southeast corner of the Subject Property provided over the abutting lands to the east. The Intermarket Road access will be provided by way of an easement to be granted over the adjacent lands. The access driveway proposes a width of 9 metres (“m”) and the driveway is to be constructed to the City’s standard for a private roadway.

14The noise-related concerns arise due to the location of the employment lands immediately abutting and to the east of the Subject Property. A detailed lot grading plan was prepared together with the NIA as part of the settlement negotiations. The Settlement provides for a noise attenuation wall having a maximum height of 3.5 m to be provided on the adjacent employment lands, additional sections of noise attenuation wall to be installed in connection with the proposed Intermarket Road driveway as well as enhanced landscaping. Further, to ensure appropriate noise mitigation measures are incorporated in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Noise Guidelines (NPC-300), the Settlement required site-specific regulations to be included in the proposed zoning by-law.

15Mr. Currie advised that the specific details will be finalized and incorporated in the site plan drawings for the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property. Similarly, the specific details for the development of the adjacent employment lands will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process as well in accordance with the MOS.

Land Use Planning Considerations

16Mr. Currie reviewed the matters of provincial interest set out s. 2 of the Planning Act and proffered that: the natural features on the Subject Property have been appropriately protected, the proposal contributes to the provision of a full range of housing, public health and safety have been addressed with the noise mitigation measures incorporated in the proposing zoning and the development is outside of the flood plain of the Freeport Creek, and the Subject Property is located in the Urban Area and designated appropriately for residential development. Mr. Currie concluded that the proposed redevelopment and the requisite amendments to the COP and ZBL have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial in s. 2 of the Planning Act.

17In consideration of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), Mr. Currie opined that the Applications, as modified in the MOS, are consistent with the PPS. The Applications will provide a mix and range of housing options and densities as required by Section 2.2. The proposed development will utilize existing transportation infrastructure and municipal water and sewage services consistent with the direction of Section 3.2 and Section 3.6 of the PPS. Section 4.1 requires the protection of Natural Features for the long-term and this is achieved by the designation of the Freeport Creek watercourse and floodplain, including the creation of a buffer through the OPA and ZBA. The site-specific provisions contained within the proposed zoning will address land use compatibility with the adjacent employment lands.

18The ROP permits residential land uses in the Urban Area designation and Mr. Currie proffered that the proposed development will contribute to achieving the density targets in the Designated Greenfield Area designation.

19Mr. Currie opined that the proposed COP Low/Medium Density Residential designation is an appropriate land use designation for Subject Property. The Applications as modified by the MOS will permit a range of housing types and sizes as per section 2.1 of the COP, and conform with the policies contained sections 2.5 and 2.8. The proposed OPA will designate a portion of the subject lands appropriately to protect the portion of the property that contains natural heritage features as required in section 3.A.3 of the COP. The site-specific provisions contained in the ZBA will ensure land use compatibility with the future adjacent land use as required in section 8.5.2.5 of the COP. Mr. Currie opined that the Applications are consistent with or conform to the COP.

Participant Statements

20Mr. Currie reviewed the concerns raised in the Participant Statements submitted to the Tribunal. The concerns raised with respect to road access have been addressed through the creation of the second access to Intermarket Road. Riverbank Drive is identified as a Collector Road in the COP. The potential traffic impacts were studied by the Appellant’s Traffic Engineer, concluding that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate to the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Currie further noted that Riverbank Drive is not a Scenic Route as submitted by the Participants, and he explained that the Scenic Route designation only applies to Riverbank Drive north of Allendale Road. The Participant concerns with respect to the housing types and density, and their request to develop the lands with single detached dwellings would not conform to the ROP and would be inconsistent with the directions provided in the PPS. Mr. Currie opined that the concerns raised with respect to the availability of amenities is not a limitation on the proposed redevelopment.

21Mr. Currie concluded proffering that the Applications as modified by the MOS represents good land use planning and recommended that the Appeals be allowed and the Applications be approved in accordance with the MOS.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

22Having considered the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Currie and the having reviewed the MOS, the Tribunal accepts the opinions proffered by Mr. Currie and finds that the Appeal should be allowed and the Applications should be approved as set out in the instruments attached to the MOS.

23The Tribunal finds that the Applications have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that natural areas, features, and functions will be protected, the proposed development will result in an orderly development of a safe and healthy community, provide a range of housing, and appropriately resolves public and private interests.

24The PPS promotes densities for new housing which efficiently uses land and infrastructure. The Tribunal finds that the Applications will facilitate a development that provides an appropriate mix of housing types and densities at the edge of the Urban Boundary, utilizing existing municipal infrastructure that achieves the objective of the PPS. The natural heritage features on the Subject Property are appropriately protected and the site-specific standards contained in the proposed zoning by-law ensure compatibility with the adjacent future employment uses. The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA as modified by the MOS are consistent with the PPS.

25The ROP identifies the Subject Property as being located within the Urban Area and designates the Subject Property as Designated Greenfield Area which permits residential development. The Applications propose a mix of single, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings in conformity with Policy 3.A.6 of the ROP. The Tribunal concludes that the Applications conform to the ROP.

26The Tribunal finds that the land-use designations proposed in the OPA and the site-specific provisions contained within the proposed ZBA address the natural heritage features on the Subject Property and the compatibility with the adjacent employment lands conforms with the applicable COP policies. Further, the proposed COP designation and the proposed ZBA conform to the policy intent and direction contained in the COP to provide a range of housing types and sizes and will contribute to the City’s ability to meet the density targets set out in the COP. The Tribunal finds that the Applications conform with the COP.

27The Tribunal finds that the OPA and the ZBA, as modified, represent good planning, are in the public interest.

28The Tribunal allows the Appeals and the Applications are approved as set out in the instruments attached to the MOS.

ORDER

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal filed pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed in part and Orders that Amendment No. 84 of the Official Plan for the City of Cambridge is approved as modified as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

30AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal filed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed in part, and By-law 150-85 of the City of Cambridge is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Cambridge to assign a number to this by-law for recordkeeping purposes.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

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.