Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 03, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000564

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Glen Nyhus Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. Subject: By-law No. ZBL 24-034 Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers Reference Number: OR09/23 Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000564 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564 OLT Case Name: Nyhus v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers Reference Number: OPA 77 Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000989 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564 OLT Case Name: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. v. Waterloo (Region)

Heard: October 6 – 30, 2025 (16 days) by video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.	A. Platt K. Vergis-Mayo
Glen Nyhus	Self-represented*
City of Cambridge	B. Duxbury N. Auty
Regional Municipality of Waterloo	F. McCrea A. Gazzola

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant” or “Haastown”) proposes three mixed-use, residential towers of 22, 20 and 17 storeys, with up to 635 dwelling units, and street-front commercial space at grade (“Haastown version/proposal”), on its 1.15 hectare (“ha”) property comprising 102 Fountain Street South, 134 and 144 Fountain Street North, and 199 Abraham Street (collectively, the “site”) in the Preston community of the City of Cambridge (“City”).

2Haastown sought amendments to the City’s Official Plan (“COP”) and Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) which resulted in the City’s adoption of Official Plan Amendment 77 (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 24-034 (“ZBA”) permitting intensification on the site but not at the scale proposed by Haastown. Haastown appealed the Regional Municipality of Waterloo’s (“Region”) approval of OPA 77 and appealed the City’s adoption of the ZBA.

3Glen Nyhus (“Nyhus”), a nearby resident of the neighbourhood abutting to the west of the site, appealed the ZBA. At a previous Case Management Conference for these appeals, the appeals were to be “heard together” for which the Tribunal herein finds that Nyhus’ appeal applies to the ZBA alone, while Haastown’s appeals apply to both the OPA and ZBA. This distinction was not at issue at the Hearing, given that similar primary issues arose from each of the OPA and ZBA, and no procedural matters were raised regarding Nyhus’ scope of appeal.

4Prior to this Hearing, Haastown settled its issues with the Region. Thus, the Region attended the Hearing only when matters of transportation were addressed.

5The City remains opposed to the scale of the proposed development, preferring its adopted OPA and ZBA that enable two 15-storey residential towers with street-front commercial space at grade (“City version”).

6The primary issues addressed in this Hearing are categorized in this Decision as: traffic; compatibility (e.g., height, density, overlook, skyview); heritage conservation; and the use of ZBA Holding (“H”) provisions.

7For the reasons elaborated within this Decision, the Tribunal favours the Haastown proposal on all four main issues.

8This site is a landmark property within downtown Preston, and most importantly, within the Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) of the coming ION light rail transit (“ION”) station in Preston. Transit support is both needed and directed in Ontario. While there is no doubt that traffic from the site’s residents will result in unwanted congestion within the adjacent neighbourhood, the Tribunal relies on the Region’s transportation settlement with Haastown and the general absence of City involvement in traffic issues throughout these applications’ process.

9Land use compatibility is achieved through street-front commercial space, and slender towers with setbacks, stepbacks, and landscaping relative to the adjacent neighbourhood. This site will help frame and bring street life back to the inviting heritage building at 138 Fountain Street South (“138”). Finally, the H provision matters have been validated as feasible such that the normal course of Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) may ensue, including those matters expressly directed by Haastown’s requested OPA.

10The Parties called the following witnesses, each of whom was qualified to provide opinion evidence in their field of expertise.

Area of Expertise	Haastown	Region	City	Nyhus
Geotechnical Engineering	Eric Chung
Acoustical Engineering	Mandy Chan
Services Engineering	Chris Togeretz
Transportation Engineering	Matthew Brouwer	Geoffrey Keyworth		Baher Abdulhai
Cultural Heritage	Nathalie Desrosiers		Leah Wallace	Marcus Letourneau
Urban Design	Evelyn Thomas
Land Use Planning	Lisa Prime Kristen Barisdale		Allan Ramsay	Michael Barton

CONTEXTUAL FACTS

11People from near and far know this site as the former landmark property of the historic Preston Springs Hotel (“Hotel”). The Hotel and surrounding services provided a stop-over for travellers and settlers along the Huron Road. With the Hotel now gone, the heritage structure at 138, abutting to the south of the site, remains a somewhat isolated, but important, remnant of the once bustling community along and around this main street.

12This 1.15 ha site spans approximately 150 metres (“m”) along the west side of Fountain Street South (“Fountain S”) and Fountain Street North (“Fountain N”) (collectively, “Fountain”) at the “T” intersection of Fountain and King Street West (“King”). At the rear of the site, an “arm” extends out to Abraham Street (“Abraham”) with approximately 20 m of frontage. The site is a hillside, rising some 20 m westward from Fountain to the rear lot line, and sloping more gently down along its frontage from Fountain N to Fountain S.

13Low-rise residential lands with detached dwellings surround the site to the north, west and south (the “neighbourhood”). To the east, across Fountain N from the site, is an intensification development under construction at 255 King for three towers of 14, 15 and 16 storeys, totalling 600 dwelling units. Further northeast from the site is a 14-storey residential tower at 237 King. Also to the east, across Fountain S from the site, are a few one-storey commercial buildings.

14The Region Official Plan (“ROP”), includes this site within the Preston MTSA on Figure 8b, being lands generally within 500 to 800 m (commonly considered a 10-minute walk) to the future Preston ION station. This site is approximately 550 m from the planned ION station. The site is adjacent to existing Grand River Transit bus services along Fountain and King.

15The COP designates most of this site as Preston Towne Centre, with 134 and 144 Fountain N requiring redesignation to High Density Residential. 199 Abraham is proposed to remain in its Low/Medium Density Residential designation, disallow buildings, and be used for one of the site’s two access points (Fountain S and Abraham).

16Haastown’s original applications proposed three towers of 26, 24 and 22 storeys, which were revised through subsequent design plans leading to a proposed design for this Hearing of 22, 20 and 18 storeys. In Reply evidence, Haastown presented changes to its requested OPA and ZBA (Ex. 2.8) endeavouring to address certain matters raised in the Hearing. This Decision focusses on Haastown’s final request, including lowering the north tower by one storey for a height of 17 storeys, setting a site maximum of 635 dwelling units, and a maximum resident parking rate of 1.0 space per dwelling unit.

17The following table summarizes the primary differences between Haastown’s requested OPA and ZBA compared to the versions passed by the City.

Haastown	City
Maximum of three towers of 22, 20 and 17 storeys	Maximum of two towers of 15 storeys
Maximum of 635 dwelling units	No minimum or maximum density
North side yard: 3 m South side yard: 3 m	North side yard: 2.7 m South side yard: 1.5 m
45 degree angular plane measured from 7.5 m beyond the rear lot line at an elevation of 296 m above sea level (“masl”)	45 degree angular plane measured from the rear lot line
Tower separation: 25.4 m from a tower on site Tower interior lot line setback (side yard): 12 m Maximum tower footprint: 1,200 square metres (“sq m”)	Tower separation: 22 m from a tower on site Tower interior lot line setback (side yard): 11 m Maximum tower footprint: 2,000 sq m
Maximum resident parking: 1.0 space per unit Maximum visitor parking: 0.08 spaces per unit Visitor spaces will also be used by non-residential uses	Minimum resident parking: 1.0 space per unit Minimum visitor parking: 0.08 spaces per unit Minimum non-residential parking: 2.5 spaces per 100 sq m of gross leasable commercial floor area
SPA shall address the Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) and Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”), among other requirements (e.g., Noise Study, Urban Design Brief, etc.)	A ZBL H provision shall apply, requiring, prior to lifting the H, a TIA and HIA, among other requirements

PARTY POSITIONS

18The Tribunal summarizes the Parties’ oral and written submissions as follows.

Haastown

19Haastown requests the Tribunal to approve its modified instruments (Ex. 2.9) to enable its plans as illustrated by the rendering below (Ex. 2.4, p. 1):

20Haastown argues that its proposal is fully evidence-based related to the core issues of: traffic, as settled with the Region; compatibility; 138’s heritage protection; and the non-necessity of H provisions. The City’s adopted instruments, which deviated from City staff’s recommendations, were not supported by or based on drawings and studies to enable analyses of scale, massing, shadows, and transition. The City’s resulting built form would allow undesirable slab-like buildings, as opposed to Haastown’s known outcome of narrow towers with setbacks, tower separations, maximum density, and maximum parking area. To Nyhus’ opposition to both the Haastown and the City’s instruments, Haastown argues that dismissing the applications would be contrary to addressing the current housing and affordability crisis.

21Haastown posits that its instrument revisions (Ex. 2.8) reflect improvements arising from this detailed Hearing, including: a one-storey reduction of the north tower for improved transition and skyline given its proximity to the angled rear lot line; a maximum height for each tower; a maximum unit count and parking rate to assure limits on density and traffic, and to further support transit use; assurance that the street-side pedestrian way will be enhanced by, if necessary, removal and reuse of the former Hotel’s stone wall and pillars; specific reference to the Fountain and Abraham access points, as aligned with Regional policy and practice; an updated HIA assuring engineered protection to 138, and an increased 3 m podium setback from the 138 property line.

22To the Tribunal’s obligation, under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), to “have regard to” City Council’s (“Council”) decision, Haastown argues that the City’s record displays Council’s non-acceptance of City staff’s recommendations, and specific advice that staff could not comment on the impact of Council’s adjustments to the resulting built form. With reference to Jane Bloor LP v Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 79634 (ON LT) (Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000656) and Ottawa (City) v Minto Communities Inc., 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON SCDC), [2009] CarswellOnt 7349 (ON SCDC) (“Minto”), Haastown argues that “have regard to” must not be conflated with deference, and that the Tribunal is not bound by Council’s decision.

23Haastown posits that reliance on the City’s out-dated COP to oppose this development overlooks the much more recent policies in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and ROP, with specific emphasis on MTSAs, intensification, and transit support. On the evidence of its numerous witnesses, Haastown concludes that the revised OPA and ZBA satisfy all statutory tests under the Act.

24Haastown requests that the Tribunal allow its appeal, in part, approve the OPA and ZBA as contained in Ex. 2.9, and deny Nyhus’ appeal.

Region

25The Region explained its role in this Hearing as focussing on transportation impacts and traffic noise mitigation within its Regional Road Network. In accordance with recent legislation (Bill 23 and Bill 185) the ROP now functions as an Official Plan for the City in conjunction with the COP and ZBL.

26The Region posits that resolving access is essential to the site’s overall feasibility, as opined by Mr. Keyworth. The settlement with Haastown would implement the feasible access configuration of a full movement access to Abraham and a right-in/right-out access to Fountain S based on the 2025 Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”). The related redline changes to Haastown’s proposal (Ex. 2.8) will: maintain the integrity of the Fountain – King controlled access Regional Roads; align with ROP s. 5.A.32 which prioritizes access from local municipal roads; maintain intersection performance at the T; eliminate unsafe movements and reduce conflicts near the bus priority lane; and facilitate service vehicles and emergency access.

27The Region emphasizes Mr. Keyworth’s opinion that the preferred access arrangement would also be recommended for development arising from the City’s preferred OPA and ZBA. The Region argues that the Haastown and Region’s engineering evidence should be preferred over Nyhus’ witness, given that Dr. Abdulhai’s focus and experience relate to large-scale transportation matters, with no direct experience on TISs for specific development applications.

28The redline changes also ensure compliance with transportation noise mitigation at the SPA stage when floor plans, elevations, and mechanical layouts are known, as opined by Ms. Chan, having confirmed feasibility for noise mitigation.

29The Region requests the Tribunal to implement its settlement with Haastown and include, in the OPA, policies 8.10.113(1)(s)(i) and (v) per Ex. 2.9.

City

30The City argues that its OPA and ZBA, both as adopted by Council and through Mr. Ramsay’s recommended changes, support intensification on this site. The issue is: how much intensification should occur here? The site’s context of a low-rise community is central to assessing policies and provisions.

31The City contends that Haastown’s focus on design in support of its proposal is a SPA matter, whereas this OPA and ZBA Hearing should focus on the degree of intensification. While it is necessary to demonstrate that design objectives are feasible, these appeals cannot finalize such elements as podium design, tower style, or publicly accessible space.

32On the evidence of its heritage and planning witnesses, the City asserts that Haastown proposes too much intensification too close to the neighbourhood. It would result in Cambridge’s tallest series of structures within a low-rise context. Basing the angular plane within the rear yard of neighbouring houses brings the tower stepbacks closer to the neighbourhood, and should be replaced with Mr. Ramsay’s conventional approach of angling from the lot line. Compatibility is also addressed through density, where Mr. Ramsay estimates the City version to enable approximately 357 units, where the Haastown version proposes 635 units. Mr. Ramsay demonstrated that, while the ZBA permits a maximum floorplate of 2,000 sq m, the actual floorplates will be substantially smaller and more in line with Haastown’s floorplates, when applying setbacks and Mr. Ramsay’s recommended angular plane.

33On the traffic evidence of the other Parties, the City posits that the high traffic volumes on Fountain may generate a higher proportion of travel on Abraham, and entering or exiting via Jacob Street (“Jacob”) or Kitchener Road (“Kitchener”) will result in long queues and delays. A lower site density will help alleviate such conditions.

34The City emphasizes that the Haastown proposal was designed with reference to a HIA that did not evaluate the site’s effects on the designated heritage property at 138. Ms. Wallace has opined that the more recent HIA analysis conducted for this Hearing does not adequately identify and assess options that may better respect 138’s heritage attributes. The City argues that Ms. Desrosiers’ focus on the streetscape relationship seems to emphasize an accidental benefit to 138 as opposed to an intended design in respect of heritage.

35The City requests that all of its H provisions be upheld, regardless of which OPA and ZBA version may be approved. In particular, traffic remains at issue, as addressed through Dr. Abdulhai’s evidence, and should be fully resolved in advance of SPA. Similarly, the conservation of heritage attributes at 138 warrants the H provision to best reflect the adjacency of this site’s development. The H provision will ensure and enable Council’s consideration of traffic and heritage matters that have further evolved through this Hearing. The City’s statutory authority for releasing H provisions should be enabled.

36Regarding s. 2.1(a) of the Act, the City references para. [33] of the Minto case to emphasize that the Tribunal “has an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council.” The City argues that, through Council’s revisions to the OPA and ZBA and its desire to utilize H provisions, it was alive to matters of scale and compatibility with the neighbourhood for this high-profile site. Greater compatibility can be achieved while still achieving intensification.

37The City requests that the appeals be granted, in part, and the City’s OPA and ZBA be modified and approved in accordance with its versions in Ex. 1.7.

Nyhus

38Nyhus submits that both the City and Haastown’s ZBAs constitute over-development related to: density; built form, setbacks and transition; Regional Road impacts; and the use of Abraham.

39The minimum target for this MTSA is 160 persons and jobs (“pj”) per ha (“pj/ha”). When focussed in 30% of the MTSA area considered capable of intensification, the goal requires approximately 350 pj/ha to meet the minimum target. With apartment units averaging 2.05 persons per unit, the required unit count is 171 units per ha (“u/ha”) to meet the target. The Haastown proposal at 552 u/ha is three times the density required to meet the provincial target. In addition, such density, if replicated throughout the 30% MTSA area, would well exceed the capacity of the Preston wastewater treatment plant.

40Nyhus argues that 255 King presents an important comparator for this site. Each property would have three towers totalling some 600 units. However, despite 255 King being twice as large as this site, and abutting a range of uses, including residential, industrial and railway, the Haastown site would have twice the density and substantially taller buildings, while being surrounded on three sides by a low-rise residential neighbourhood.

41Using the above calculated target of 171 u/ha, Nyhus submits that neither Haastown nor the City has demonstrated why reduced ZBL side yards are necessary to achieve the intended intensification. Based on Mr. Ramsay’s evidence, it follows that if the existing ZBL setbacks do not restrict the level of intensification necessary to achieve the target, then such ZBL should be considered in conformity with the ROP and applied at this site.

42Nyhus submits that the transition required between different land uses by the PPS and COP is not achieved. Ms. Thomas advised that a tower side yard of 12 m enables a possible tower on abutting lands to be separated 24 m from a tower on this site, similar to the separation between Haastown’s three towers. Nyhus argues that the proposed separation to the neighbourhood is the same as between two towers, which cannot constitute adequate transition. Again, the ZBL should be enforced to help achieve transition while also meeting the density target of 171 u/ha.

43With reference to two Tribunal (or its predecessor) cases, Nyhus contends that heritage impacts have not been evaluated fully, including the potential use of an angular plane beside 138, as opined by Dr. Letourneau.

44On traffic, Nyhus emphasizes Dr. Abdulhai’s conclusion that traffic volume exceeds capacity today at peak hours at and around the T intersection. This critical volume exists before traffic is added from 255 King and this site. If this site proceeds, its buildings will prevent potential road improvements. The TIS found that a northbound left turn lane is warranted on Fountain N at Jacob under existing conditions but may not be feasible given the geometric constraints on Fountain. Nyhus submits that the Haastown and Region settlement will plug the northbound lane on Fountain N. If Haastown is not required to widen Fountain N through land acquisition, then the site’s density should not exceed 171 u/ha.

45Nyhus advises that the entire neighbourhood is upset with the proposed traffic volume on Abraham, given the area’s only access points being Jacob and Kitchener. With half of the site’s traffic using Abraham, 317 households will be added to this neighbourhood of just under 200 households, being a two-and-a-half times increase. Mr. Barton identified that, unlike the MTSA, the COP’s Preston Community Core Area does not extend to Abraham. The site’s necessity of using Abraham extends the MTSA into the neighbourhood and constitutes over-development.

46To the City version, Nyhus accepts Ms. Thomas’ evidence that two, shorter and wider towers could yield the same number of units. Nyhus questions whether the H provisions can effectively alter the form of development given the ZBA provisions. The potential similar results to the Haastown version invoke the same concerns (above) to the City version.

47Nyhus requests the Tribunal to deny the proposals of both Haastown and the City.

ISSUES and FINDINGS

Transportation

48On the question of what scale of intensification should occur on this site, given its contributions to existing traffic issues, the Tribunal finds for Haastown based on the confluence of several factors:

• a settlement with the Region;
• the City’s relative absence on traffic issues;
• the policy direction to increase density within an MTSA;
• the detailed and accepted evidence of Mr. Brouwer and Mr. Keyworth; and
• informative, high-level analysis from Dr. Abdulhai, but which is out-weighed by the above factors.

49On day six of the Hearing, the City sought permission to call a transportation witness. Haastown and the Region opposed the request. In pursuit of a fair and efficient Hearing, the Tribunal refused the request through the following ruling on the morning of day seven.

The City has requested the opportunity to potentially call a transportation witness not on the witness list to address Haastown’s settlement with the Region related to the settled revision to the OPA regarding the Transportation Impact Study (TIS).

Haastown and the Region oppose the request, citing, in part, that the City chose not to be involved in matters of traffic raised by Haastown, leaving such to the Region which have now been resolved.

Under Rule 1.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, in pursuit of a fair, just and expeditious Hearing, the Tribunal will dismiss the City’s request for the following reasons.

Central to this Hearing is whether the City’s concerns should be addressed through a ZBA Holding provision or deferred to the future Site Plan Application. The Tribunal finds that such question remains a live issue with or without the latest Haastown wording in Ex. 1.7.

The Haastown OPA version and the City’s adopted OPA version both refer to a TIS and “as approved by the Region and City” whether that is through lifting the H as preferred by the City or at Site Plan as preferred by Haastown. Thus, the Tribunal finds that the City’s Issues before it are unchanged by Ex. 1.7.

Had the City wished to participate in detailed engineering matters, it had several opportunities to enter the fray over the past year. The potential use of Abraham Street for access to this site has been known by the City for at least a few months.

The Tribunal finds that two additional steps in the process of a fair hearing will help to alleviate the City’s concerns over addressing evidence.

First, Mr. Nyhus is calling a transportation witness, whose evidence, presumably, may be aligned with the City’s concerns. The City may explore its concerns with such witness.

Second, of course, the Tribunal will allow the City’s full and complete cross-examination of the Region’s traffic witness, and final submissions will hear the City’s arguments on its issues related to traffic.

The request is denied.

50Key legislative and policy themes are summarized from the planning and transportation evidence as follows.

51Section 2 of the Act requires regard for matters of provincial interest, including: (f) an adequate and efficient transportation system; (o) protecting public health and safety; and (q) promoting development that supports public transit and is oriented to pedestrians.

52The PPS policies are summarized under several themes. Densities are to optimize the use of existing and planned infrastructure, support active transportation, and support transit (ss. 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.6). Strategic growth areas, including MTSAs, will support the transit network (s. 2.4.1.1), maximize the number of potential transit users within walking distance of a transit station (s. 2.4.2.1), and achieve a minimum density target of 160 pj/ha (s. 2.4.2.2). Transportation systems are to be safe, efficient, facilitate movement, and address projected needs (s. 3.2.1). Transportation demand management strategies should be used for the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure (s. 3.2.2).

53Under the ROP, the Preston MTSA surrounds the planned Stage 2 ION station within a 10-minute walking distance (s. 2.D.2.1 and Figure 8b). The COP and ZBL must plan to achieve a minimum density target of 160 pj/ha, support transit and active transportation, and provide alternative development standards (e.g., reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements) to maximize intensification (ss. 2.D.2.2(b) and 2.D.6.1). Not every property may be appropriate for major intensification, with scale and form to be subject to local planning policies (s. 2.D.2.8). Developments along Regional Roads will align with Regional guidelines and master plans (s. 5.A.32) and will be accessed by area municipal roads, wherever feasible, as determined by the Region, in consultation with the municipality (s. 5.A.32(a)).

54Under the COP, MTSAs will be planned, in consultation with the Region, to increase density to support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit (s. 2.6.6.4). Until COP policies for MTSAs are established, developments will be reviewed under the transit supportive policies of COP s. 5.3 and ROP s. 2.D.6 (s. 2.6.6.6). The City will ensure that 45% of new housing is through infill, intensification and redevelopment within the built-up area, including within MTSAs (s. 2.8.2.3). MTSAs will display a compact urban form in medium and high densities that is encouraged along arterial roads within walking distance of transit (s. 5.3.1), and compatible with the characteristics of neighbouring land uses regarding vehicular movement and transportation implications (s. 8.4.2.1).

55This site fronts onto a Regional Road (Fountain) and backs onto a local City street (Abraham). Abraham connects only to Fountain via Jacob and Kitchener. Thus, all of this site’s traffic must utilize Fountain, either directly – along its Fountain frontage, or indirectly – through the neighbourhood. The Region, being the owner/operator of Fountain, has settled with Haastown, whereby roughly half of the site’s traffic will use the in-out at Abraham and half will use the right-in/right-out at Fountain, to the south of the T intersection. Service vehicles will enter and exit the site via the Fountain access. Haastown has capped the number of resident vehicle parking spaces at 1/unit, capped the visitor/commercial spaces at 0.08/unit, and proposes to incentivize car-free living by separating the cost of parking from the purchase of a unit.

56While keeping the City informed throughout the process, the Region and Haastown engineers developed and agreed on a Terms of Reference for the TIS based on the Region’s guidelines, including traffic counts, annual growth, area developments (255 King), and this site. On the Region’s concerns with this site bringing a fourth leg to the busy T intersection that would reduce signal timing, the TIS was updated to assess three options, with the favourable Fountain and Abraham accesses acceptable to the Region and leading to the settlement.

57Dr. Abdulhai opined on several deficiencies of the TIS, including the: absence of current 2025 data for all affected intersections; absence of background traffic from developments across a broader area; use of 2022 data that remained low after the 2020 pandemic; not using higher annual increases to background traffic since 2020; insufficient attention to congestion growing exponentially with volume; and all but one movement at the T rated at Level of Service (“LoS”) E or F. Dr. Abdulhai concludes that further intensification should not proceed until road improvements are implemented based on an area-wide study to achieve necessary lanes for transit, active transportation, turning, and through-traffic.

58The Tribunal finds Dr. Abdulhai’s inputs and conclusions informative at a broad level, but difficult to apply specifically to the case at hand. This T intersection is a traffic “bottleneck” in Preston. The Tribunal considers such condition as both a rationale for the ION plans and the ongoing support for transit viability through use. Transition takes time, both to bring the ION into service and to influence residents’ mode choice. Dr. Abdulhai’s reference to “choosing the path of least resistance,” albeit his rationale for why residents may prefer the Abraham access, surely also applies to choosing transit. The policy environment directs density to this MTSA for precisely that reason: densify such that transit is preferred and chosen given its time and cost benefits.

59To Dr. Abdulhai’s concerns with the TIS, the Tribunal accepts the reasoned responses from the other transportation engineers. Traffic counts were included and assessed in accordance with the Region’s practices. The Region is satisfied that the increased peak hours can be accommodated. At a broader level, the Tribunal finds it unreasonable to halt this site’s development, or other lands that may provide further intensification within the MTSA, until wider area traffic solutions are found for the Fountain – King area. Dr. Abdulhai does concede that the policies do not delay development until such study and improvements are completed. The existing and future traffic conditions are anticipated to aid in the acceptance and desirability of pedestrian and transit movement both within and to/from downtown Preston, including this site. The Region, as approval authority for its Regional Roads, accepts the TIS conclusions.

60There is no doubt that this site’s density will increase the length and frequency of queues on Abraham, Jacob/Kitchener, and Fountain. However, as addressed by Mssrs. Brouwer and Keyworth, the mitigating factors include: the site’s trip generation is somewhat over-estimated, given that no reduction was included for mode choice (e.g., walk, bus, future ION, ride-share); while queues will occur on Abraham and Jacob during the morning peak hour, the Jacob-Fountain Volume/Capacity (“V/C”) of 0.67 is below capacity, despite inclusion of the full build-out effects from 255 King and this site, and no reductions for future ION usage; signals are not recommended at Fountain/Jacob based on not being overall beneficial; and the City may regulate and require upgrades to local streets to better accommodate the increased traffic.

61In the policy summaries above, COP ss. 2.6.6.4, 2.6.6.6, and 5.3.1 are highly applicable for transportation matters, as well as the other major issues addressed later. As heard in evidence, the COP is somewhat dated, having not been updated under the 2024 PPS or the current ROP. However, the COP is clear in s. 2.6.6.6 on its objectives for intensification within MTSAs, in advance of more detailed policies being adopted, by applying the “principles” of transit-oriented development in s. 5.3.1. The COP also directs that ROP s. 2.D.6 apply. Thus, contrary to certain arguments of the City and Nyhus that the COP and ZBL should be respected until further policy and provision updates are achieved, the Tribunal finds that the COP is clear: review applications against the principles of transit-oriented development. Compatibility must also be factored in (ROP s. 2.D.2.8; COP s. 8.4.2.1) as addressed under ‘Compatibility’ below.

62On the traffic issue, the Tribunal heard repeatedly, and largely uncontested, the principle of density to support transit. More people means more transit users. It also means more cars, at least for the foreseeable future. However, the Tribunal accepts and applies Dr. Abdulhai’s reference to “the path of least resistance” in concluding that longer queues and slower vehicle movements promote and encourage transit use, as well as foot and bicycle travel for local trips. As opined by Mr. Keyworth, “more people means more traffic which helps transition gradually to transit.” Thus, the Tribunal finds that the affected intersections’ rising V/C and lowered LoS from this site and others (e.g., 255 King and background traffic from further afield) respect the principles of transit ridership and transit viability.

63The TIS evenly splits the site’s residents’ use of Abraham and Fountain S, such that the weekday morning peak hour anticipates 60 vehicles added to Abraham’s existing use. Mr. Brouwer opines that traffic numbers would be similar under the City’s ZBA given the potential for a similar site density, but could result in more traffic because a maximum parking rate is not specified.

64As concluded by Mr. Brouwer, with the agreement of Mr. Keyworth, this development is feasible and acceptable from a transportation perspective because it can be accommodated by the existing road network. While backups will occur along Fountain northbound turning at Jacob, especially during peak hours and area industry shift changes, overall, delays are within acceptable parameters. The T intersection is nearing or at LoS limits but will continue to function acceptably. They note that City planning staff’s recommendation against the use of Abraham was not based on input from the City transportation department, predated the final TIS, and the City did not participate in the communications and meetings of the transportation engineers. Nevertheless, the TIS was completed in accordance with the Region guidelines, as commonly required by the City. The Region could consider the wider area through future master plans, but Fountain N and S remain difficult to widen due to topography and heritage buildings.

65The Tribunal finds the TIS methodology and outcomes supportive of the site’s proposed access points based on conventional and reasonable engineering practices. The clear policy direction at all levels – Provincial, Regional, and City – is to support transit through intensification within a MTSA. Approximately half of the traffic from this site will utilize the Abraham access, resulting in unwanted traffic in the neighbourhood. However, the in-force policy of the Region, known by the City, and (now, undoubtedly) known by the neighbourhood, is to use local streets for access, where feasible. Such arrangement was assessed and chosen here by the TIS. While perhaps little assurance to Nyhus and the neighbourhood, the Tribunal anticipates a few years of gradual adjustment to the traffic reality given the time required for SPA and permits, and the phasing of this site’s development over the coming years.

66The MTSA frontage on Abraham will be addressed under ‘Compatibility’ below.

Compatibility

67The Tribunal finds that this case also hinges on the Haastown and/or City versions achieving compatibility with the surrounding character, with emphasis on the abutting neighbourhood. The Tribunal prefers the Haastown OPA and ZBA over that of the City in achieving better area compatibility within downtown Preston and through its transition to the neighbourhood.

68As presented in evidence, compatibility is not “the same as” or even “similar to” but rather the ability of adjacent or nearby land uses to co-exist in harmony. The COP definition also speaks to “not having a physical or functional adverse impact on surrounding properties.”

69Applying this definition to the transportation analysis above, Nyhus argues that this site’s traffic will adversely impact the neighbourhood. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the substantial increase in neighbourhood traffic creates an impact, it must be weighed against the entire policy regime, including the role and character of a MTSA and the Region’s roads hierarchy. Absent the Abraham access, the effects on the T intersection’s LoS are found to result in an unacceptable functional adverse impact. Such result exemplifies why the ROP directs the use of local streets. Moreover, the Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the Preston MTSA designation extends to Abraham, giving this intensification site frontage on, and access to, a local City street. Thus, the Tribunal does not accept Mr. Barton’s opinion that the use of Abraham effectively brings the MTSA into the neighbourhood, which, he posits, if it were intended, would have been shown in the ROP as including the entire street and all lots fronting thereon. The Tribunal finds that the ROP is clear: intensify in the MTSA and use local streets where possible.

70The Tribunal finds that the weight to be given to the ROP and COP is tempered by the dates they, or their updates, came into force. The COP dates back to 2012 and has not been updated in accordance with ROP Amendment 6, which established the MTSA framework, among other strategic growth matters. The ROP directs where and how intensification is to occur within a MTSA. In addition, the Haastown OPA would amend the COP, such that complete conformity with every COP policy is not required. The OPA seeks permissions to alter the applicable policy environment in pursuit of a specific development proposal. In general terms, the Tribunal finds that a sought COP OPA must conform with the ROP, but need only reasonably align with the COP it intends to amend.

71The remaining compatibility issues focus on built form, as guided by the urban design evidence of Ms. Thomas for Haastown, and planning related inputs from the planners called by the City and Nyhus. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that matters of compatibility – density, design, shadow, views, setbacks, buffers, stepbacks, and angular plane – are addressed thoroughly and acceptably by the Haastown proposal.

72Evidence focussed on the PPS and ROP policies (described earlier) and COP s. 5.3.1, which calls for MTSAs to develop with: transit-oriented, compact design; medium and high density; a mix of uses oriented to the street; a high-quality public realm to enhance the area’s identity; and use of transit and active transportation.

73In addition, COP Chapter 5 speaks in depth to many objectives, including: attractive and safe built environment; connectivity through all modes of transportation; public views; respect for heritage; creative design expression; and active streetscapes. COP s. 5.1(e) is the directly relevant objective here:

e) ensure compatibility in scale, form, massing and height transition between new development and existing buildings and adjacent neighbourhoods while being sensitive to the context.

74The City does not have an urban design guideline, but the foregoing policies are instructive.

75There is no dispute that the podium façade will re-introduce a landmark building to frame the T intersection at the terminus of King. Along Fountain, a wide pedestrian realm will provide access to street-front shops and a privately-owned public space (“POPS”) proposed to be called Preston Square. Above the ground floor, residential units will face the street and conceal the parking levels “built into the hill” behind (storeys one through five).

76The Tribunal finds Haastown’s argument compelling that its proposal is supported by well-finessed architectural plans and drawings that are assured through OPA and ZBA provisions, whereas the results of the City’s OPA and ZBA are largely unknown. The Tribunal prefers the greater specificity approach over the alternative City approach, which is essentially pre-zoning without its implications evaluated fully. Urban design is fundamental to achieving compatibility within the surrounding environment. While SPA will “nail down” the design details, which are not before the Tribunal here, the Tribunal is satisfied that Haastown’s evidence and OPA/ZBA refinements display its commitments to the concept designs proffered here. Changes and refinements will occur, but the Tribunal prefers Haastown’s intended known outcome over the City’s unknown possible outcomes.

77Ms. Thomas opines that the Haastown proposal is highly preferrable to that allowed by the City ZBA. Three towers with 25 m separations, larger setbacks from lot lines, and stepbacks from the front podium and rear neighbourhood will provide greater sky view, less shadow, and a more pleasant, current design than would the City’s potential, less porous, slab buildings on much larger floorplates.

78Mr. Ramsay opines that slab buildings at the City ZBA floorplate limit of 2,000 sq m are unlikely given the associated constraints of setbacks and angular plane to arrive at an appropriate transition. Mr. Barton, called by Nyhus, recommends against both OPA/ZBA versions, opining that the resulting scale and densities would be incompatible with the abutting neighbourhood.

79To building height on this sloping site, the Tribunal finds Ms. Thomas’ description informative. The 23 m difference in ground elevation from Abraham down to Fountain, results in the towers appearing five or six storeys shorter when viewed from the neighbourhood. Thus, the proposed 22, 20 and 17-storey towers will appear as (approximately) 17, 15 and 12-storey buildings when viewed from the west. This fact is particularly beneficial for the transition of building scale from a downtown to a neighbourhood. From the downtown perspective, this site will be a tall, prominent landmark, while from the neighbourhood, it will present as lower, transition-sensitive buildings.

80To reduce the perceived tower heights, to reduce morning shadowing, and to increase sky view, Haastown proposes stepbacks on the rear wall of each tower, based on a 45-degree angular plane measured from 7.5 m beyond the rear lot line and at an elevation of 296 masl. This angular plane is sourced from the City ZBA, as researched and recommended by City staff. The City does not otherwise have an angular plane policy, provision, or guideline.

81Mr. Ramsay supports the City ZBA but recommends a change to the starting point of the angular plane, being the rear lot line and its variable masl across the site, as opposed to 7.5 m further west and based on a constant 296 masl elevation.

82Haastown’s design plans depict stepbacks somewhat below its proposed ZBA provision and encroaching only marginally into the angular plane, if measured from the rear lot line at 296 masl. Mr. Ramsay depicts his recommended angular plane, measured from the lot line, but at the existing land surface elevation, to show encroachments into the plane of approximately the depth of each stepback.

83On the angular plane issue, the Tribunal finds for Haastown. Stepbacks warrant consideration in the context of overall building design. Haastown’s smaller floorplates, with ample space between towers, increase the sky view compared to the potential wider towers allowed by the City ZBA. Pushing the stepbacks a few metres further away, or beginning the stepbacks two storeys lower would, in the Tribunal’s view, be difficult to perceive when viewed from a neighbouring property, given the distance and intervening obstructions (e.g., fencing and trees). Haastown’s plans only marginally encroach into the angular plane when measured from the lot line, if using the 296 masl. Under the City ZBA, such little effect could be overridden by the potential breadth of a building allowed by the ZBA floorplate. Given Haastown’s narrow towers, the Tribunal finds its requested angular plane sufficiently addresses compatibility with the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood, and aligns with the provision recommended by City staff and passed by the City in its ZBA.

84A sizeable separation, of 30 m or more, will exist between this site’s towers and the abutting dwellings, including some mature trees on either side of the common rear lot line, and more landscape screening proposed on this site. For the foregoing reasons of design, viewed height, and separation, the Tribunal finds the proposed tower heights appropriate and compatible regarding overlook, sky view, and transition, particularly given their appearance from the neighbourhood as 17, 15 and 12 storeys, and all with stepbacks above their visual storeys nine, seven, and five (approximately).

85The Tribunal finds the City’s OPA and ZBA difficult to uphold given their potential to allow a similar density as Haastown proposes, but limited to 15 storeys, which could necessitate use of the larger tower floorplate, resulting in diminished visual appeal and neighbourhood compatibility.

86The City and Nyhus underscore excessive density in support of their respective opposition. Mr. Ramsay compares the Haastown proposal of 557 u/ha to his estimated City ZBA allowance of 310 u/ha. Mr. Barton calculates that to meet the MTSA minimum target of 160 pj/ha, about 350 pj/ha are required across the 30% MTSA area considered available for intensification, whereas Haastown proposes two to three times that required density.

87The Tribunal accepts the foregoing calculated density numbers, but finds their application to the broader MTSA misleading. The opposition speaks to “required density” for achieving the MTSA target. However, the target is a minimum, not all lands in the estimated 30% MTSA area may be intensified, and, moreover, the intention is to maximize transit users near ION stations. Additionally, 255 King, being directly across Fountain N from this site, will have some 600 units as well. While 255 King’s larger lot results in a lower density, this site’s massing and towers along Fountain will pair well with 255 King’s three towers. The Tribunal finds that each site must be evaluated on its potential to support transit and active transportation, while balancing that goal with compatible design and function. The Haastown density will establish this gateway site as a prominent landmark, while its visual presence from the neighbourhood will be more subdued, screened, and stepped back, which the Tribunal finds appropriately implements and conforms with COP s. 5.1(e).

88Planning is as much an art as a science. Here, the Tribunal finds – on the unique character of this site and area, a contextually sensitive design, and the consensus that Ontario is experiencing a housing supply crisis – that different residential densities can co-exist in harmony despite an increase in local street traffic, which again, was foreshadowed by the MTSA’s connection with Abraham.

Heritage

89The Tribunal finds for Haastown on the issue of heritage conservation.

90The history of this site and area dates back to the mid-1800s when the Huron Road (now Fountain) was the focus of commerce and industry surrounding the T intersection. The former Preston Springs Hotel’s Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) designation was repealed and the Hotel ordered demolished for safety reasons in 2021. Heritage conservation in this case relates only to 138 Fountain S, abutting this site to the south.

91The PPS s. 4.6.3 requires that:

Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.

92COP s. 2.6.1.6e) directs intensification to support the cultural heritage of the area, and s. 4.10.1 requires a HIA for a development that includes, or is adjacent to, a designated heritage property.

93This site is adjacent to 138, being a protected heritage property under the OHA through City By-law No. 152-91 (“HBL”). The building on 138 is described as a vernacular expression of the Georgian style of architecture, built in 1853 as a saddle shop for Henry Gmelin. The HBL sets out the reasons (now called “attributes” under the OHA) for heritage designation, summarized as follows: an early building from when proximity to the Huron Road dictated the location of businesses; an example of timber, stone, and brick construction; a well-preserved example of a building modified to fit its hilly site; and reflects a pleasant “main street” building form that adds to the “urban patina” of the area.

94The Tribunal finds that the evidence of Ms. Desrosiers, and the requested wording in the Haastown OPA, sufficiently address the concerns of Ms. Wallace and Dr. Letourneau. Ms. Wallace considers that alternative options for massing, scale, and setbacks on this site have not been evaluated to arrive at the best solution for heritage conservation, and that a full HIA has not been completed. While Dr. Letourneau shares the same concern, he focusses on the need to ensure 138’s building and stone retaining wall are protected from ground vibration and disturbance during construction.

95On the accepted evidence of Ms. Desrosiers, the Tribunal finds as follows. The HIA has followed an unusual path in this case, where the original HIA focussed on this site only, without reference to 138, until the preparations for, and appearances at, this Hearing. Further assessment has now been conducted for 138, as required by the PPS and COP. To the oppositions’ concerns that a full HIA has not been completed, the revised Haastown OPA contains s. 1.s.ii, requiring an updated HIA to be implemented through SPA, including an engineer’s plan for construction mitigation and protection of 138. In addition, Ms. Wallace’s concern for a full HIA is somewhat weakened by her acknowledgement that no such HIA for 138 was conducted for the City’s adoption of the OPA and ZBA.

96While the HIA requires updating and completion based on the written and oral evidence at this Hearing, the Tribunal finds that this site will conserve, and indeed, enhance, the heritage attributes at 138. Through this development, Fountain will be returned to a “main street” form and function, with a mix of uses, a pedestrian environment, and an outdoor Preston Square, all of which will re-establish and enhance the “urban patina” of the area.

97To building scale and setbacks, Ms. Desrosiers opines, with general concurrence of Dr. Letourneau, that while the setbacks and stepbacks are sufficient, the design is the paramount consideration. The pillared façade of the podium will frame and ensure the visibility of 138 from the sidewalk and the street. The proportional rhythm of the columns achieves an “arrival” at 138 and removes its isolation, as well as being connected northward to the former Hotel location where the possible re-use of salvaged materials will be pursued. The colonnade height on the podium reflects 138’s height for a complementary scale, and while the tower will be much taller, it is the podium that is viewed and experienced by pedestrians. A tower is generally viewed only from a distance.

98This Decision on an OPA and ZBA does not direct specific design requirements related to 138’s heritage conservation. However, it has been demonstrated sufficiently that: 138 can and will be conserved; the evidentiary record and this Decision help tie Haastown to its intentions; the ZBA setbacks are firm requirements; and a final HIA and implementation measures are assured by the OPA through the SPA.

Holding Provisions

99The Tribunal will grant Haastown’s request to not include the City’s ZBA H provisions, given that they are either no longer necessary, are addressed through the requested OPA, or are mandated through SPA by s. 41 of the Act. Generally, the Tribunal finds that the principal concerns that the City endeavoured to cover through H provisions have been addressed in evidence as feasible and solvable through normal SPA procedures.

100The City’s ZBA H provisions require nine studies or actions: TIS; noise; archaeology; HIA; servicing; geotechnical; excavation/shoring; shadows; and lot consolidation. There is no disagreement that SPA is the appropriate stage to address matters of archaeology, geotechnical, excavation/shoring, and shadows. Thus, the areas remaining in dispute are: TIS; noise; HIA; servicing; and lot consolidation.

101Beginning with the less contested matters, the Tribunal finds that noise, servicing and lot consolidation can be adequately addressed at SPA. Ms. Chan, being the only acoustical engineer at the Hearing, advised that the identical noise considerations will be addressed, whether through the H or SPA, but must be based on the final designs for unit layouts, window and door openings, and mechanical systems to ensure the necessary attenuation of noise. The Haastown OPA s. 1.s.v. requires such study for SPA.

102Similarly, Mr. Togeretz’s uncontested servicing engineering evidence confirms that servicing capacity is available for this site, and that a final report, as required by OPA s. 1.s.vii at SPA, will be based on final design details.

103On lot consolidation, the Tribunal finds no issue leaving confirmation to SPA. Ms. Barisdale referred to Haastown’s application (Ex. 1.2, p. 743) filed with the Land Registrar seeking consolidation of the entire site, albeit with no confirmed outcome to date. However, it is clear to the Tribunal, through Haastown’s evidence and argument, that consolidation is necessary, as demonstrated by the common podium with essential access, services, and parking required by each of the three towers. For legal/building permit reasons, the City may reasonably require lot consolidation by Haastown at SPA, despite such action not expressly authorized by s. 41 of the Act.

104On the more contentious issues of the TIS and HIA, the Tribunal finds that the revised Haastown OPA ss. 1.s.i and 1.s.ii assure the City that these matters must be addressed at SPA to the City’s satisfaction. While the TIS provision speaks to the recommendations of the August 2025 TIS and is silent on updates, the policy ends with “as approved by the Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge.” Mr. Brouwer, for Hasstown, advised that the TIS may warrant updating at the City’s request related to changes to this site or other lands within the surrounding area. Again, the Tribunal cannot overlook the City’s absence of active involvement in the evolution of this site’s TIS. It appears that the City may have conceded transportation matters to the Region, which has settled with Haastown based on the satisfactory achievement of transportation LoS and ingress/egress in conformity with the ROP. As demonstrated through this Hearing, the City is well aware that Fountain is a Regional Road and that the ROP directs access points to local streets.

105Haastown’s requested OPA now includes s. 1.s.ii requiring, for SPA, an updated HIA, including specific requirements for construction mitigation to protect 138, as noted by Dr. Letourneau to be his primary concern regarding heritage conservation. While preferring the H approach over SPA, Dr. Letourneau advised that an HIA must address the final form, scale, and massing on this site that respects 138’s heritage attributes. As noted earlier, the Tribunal finds that Ms. Desrosiers has demonstrated how the site respects and complements 138, and while not yet contained in a final HIA, the OPA policy will ensure its completion and implementation. The Tribunal finds that such assurance addresses Ms. Wallace’s concerns that her HIA peer review be addressed and that SPA conditions may be used to ensure the protection of 138 during construction.

106The Tribunal acknowledges that COP s. 10.7.1 speaks to the use of H provisions for: e) transportation analysis; g) HIA; and i) noise study. However, an OPA is before the Tribunal here that expressly assures completing and implementing a TIS, HIA, and noise study at SPA. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal finds that the Haastown OPA, in amending the COP, has due regard to the COP intentions.

Land Use Planning

107The land use planners opined, from a planning perspective, on all of the substantive matters above, all of which the Tribunal considered in arriving at its findings. The Tribunal will briefly summarize its findings that the Haastown proposal sufficiently addresses all pertinent legislative requirements.

108Fundamental to this case is this site’s high-profile position within the Preston MTSA. PPS s. 2.3.1.1 requires growth to be focussed in strategic growth areas, including MTSAs. PPS s. 2.4.2.2 sets a minimum density target of 160 pj/ha within a MTSA served by light rail transit. These provincial policies are reflected in s. 2.D.2. of the ROP. The ROP s. 2.D.2.8 acknowledges that not every property within a MTSA may be appropriate for major intensification and that the scale and form will be subject to local policies and approval processes. The COP makes general reference to MTSAs as focus areas for growth but predates the ROP’s MTSA delineations and density targets. COP s. 8.4.2.1 employs the planning principle of compatibility when development occurs among neighbouring land uses.

109This site is a boundary property at the edge of the MTSA. Its natural topography, sloping steeply from Abraham down to Fountain, enables beneficial results from Haastown’s proposal. Three full-height, narrow towers of 22, 20 and 17 storeys will become the new Preston downtown landmark at the T, with an active street front and residential units above, within the podium. When viewed from the neighbourhood, the towers will appear five storeys lower – 17, 15 and 12 storeys, respectively – given the topography, which, when combined with a reasonable angular plane and associated stepbacks, achieves compatibility with the neighbourhood. These residential uses can co-exist in harmony, both visually and functionally. Thus, the Tribunal finds this site highly appropriate for major intensification as it marks the west limit of downtown Preston at this landmark site, and the site’s topography and the buildings’ conscientious design achieve a compatible transition to the neighbourhood behind.

110While the T intersection’s LoS and V/C remain at or near their limits, the Tribunal accepts the settlement with the Region. The Region is the approval authority on the upper-tier transportation system, including Regional Roads and the ION. The use of Abraham for roughly half of this site’s resident traffic conforms with the ROP policy to utilize local streets, and aligns with the MTSA boundary having frontage on Abraham. Increased densities and traffic congestion promote the use of transit, activating its viability, benefits to travel time, and greenhouse gas reduction.

111The Tribunal accepts that the City version, potentially resulting in slab buildings, could generate a similar housing density as the Haastown proposal. Thus, the same traffic and compatibility issues would arise, as argued by Nyhus. Despite the reasonable efforts of Mr. Ramsay, the Tribunal finds that the City failed to adequately demonstrate compatibility, given the scope of its ZBA. Ms. Thomas thoroughly advanced the urban design features that support the Haastown version.

112Good planning calls for building up, not out. The ROP sets the City’s annual intensification target minimum at 65%. The Region’s urban areas are surrounded by scenic and productive prime agricultural lands that the PPS and ROP intend to protect.

113The heritage attributes at 138 will be adequately conserved, and even enhanced, with the return of an active streetscape along the former Huron Road.

114ZBA provisions for an H are found unnecessary given that the expanded OPA policies and SPA content and authority will adequately ensure compliance with Region and City requirements.

115Ms. Barisdale refers to the City staff report (Ex. 2.1, p. 1338) that recommended in favour of the Haastown proposal, subject to a maximum of 22 storeys. While not relied on in detail, given it not being tested at this Hearing, the Tribunal has had regard to such report as a key piece of information Council had when making its decision. The Tribunal has had due regard to City Council’s decision throughout this Hearing as witnesses opined on various positive and negative aspects of the City version.

116The Tribunal finds that the Haastown OPA and ZBA (Ex. 2.9): have due regard for s. 2 of the Act; are consistent with the PPS; and conform with the ROP. The OPA aligns with the COP, and the ZBA conforms with the COP, as amended by the OPA. The Haastown OPA and ZBA constitute good planning in the public interest.

ORDER

117The Tribunal Orders that the appeals of Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. are allowed, in part, and Official Plan Amendment 77 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 24-034 are modified, and approved as modified, as contained in Attachment 1.

118The Tribunal Orders that the appeal of Glen Nyhus is dismissed.

119The City of Cambridge Clerk may format the amendments for record keeping purposes.

“S. Tousaw”

S. tousaw VICE-CHAIR

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