Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000074

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

Applicant and Appellant: Drewlo Holdings Inc.

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

Description: To permit a mixed-use, master-planned community

Reference Number: OPA No. 43

Property Address: 475 & 485 King Street N.

Municipality/UT: City of Waterloo/Region of Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000074

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000074

OLT Case Name: Drewlo Holdings Inc. v. Waterloo (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Drewlo Holdings Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a mixed-use, master-planned community

Reference Number: Z-22-14

Property Address: 475 & 485 King Street N.

Municipality/UT: City of Waterloo/Region of Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000075

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000074

OLT Case Name: Drewlo Holdings Inc. v. Waterloo (City)

Heard: November 25 to December 11, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Drewlo Holdings Inc.

Leo Longo

City of Waterloo

Alex Ciccone Susan Smith

Region of Waterloo

Fiona McCrea Andy Gazzola

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

Background

1This Decision and Order arises from a Hearing on the Merits of appeals filed by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning official plan amendment (“OPA”) and zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) applications (together, “Applications”) in the City of Waterloo (“City”) for lands municipally known as 475 and 485 King Street North (“Subject Lands”).

2The Applications seek to facilitate the development of approximately 1,800 residential dwelling units on the Subject Lands in a mixed-use, master planned community with permissions for complementary commercial, community, employment, and institutional uses. Council for the City failed to make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframes prescribed by the Act and the appeals were filed on that basis.

Parties and Participants

3At prior Case Management Conferences, the Region of Waterloo (“Region”) and The Club Willowells were granted Party status. 2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc., and 65 Northfield Drive Inc. were both granted Participant status.

4The Club Willowells owns lands on the east side of King Street North, across from the Subject Lands, including four ponds that are sensitive to surface water and groundwater flows.

52439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc. own the lands located two lots south of the Subject Lands. They have also filed development applications with the City that were appealed to the Tribunal.

665 Northfield Drive Inc. similarly has a multi-tower development proposal proximate to the Subject Lands that is subject to an appeal before the Tribunal.

Settlements

Full Settlements with the Region and The Club Willowells

7Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that they reached full settlements with both the Region and The Club Willowells, and respective Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) were filed with the Tribunal on the first day of the Hearing. The MOS between the Region and the Appellant were marked as Exhibit 6. The MOS between The Club Willowells and the Appellant were marked as Exhibit 7.

8In light of their settlement, the Club Willowells requested that their status in these proceedings be changed from Party to Participant, such that they would no longer take on an active role in the Hearing. The request was granted by the Tribunal on consent of the Parties and The Club Willowells’ status was changed from Party to Participant.

Partial Settlement with the City

9The Appellant also reached a partial settlement with the City during the Hearing and filed partial MOS with the Tribunal on Day 4 of the Hearing, which were marked as Exhibit 10.

ISSUES

10A substantial number of the 49 issues on the approved Issues List were resolved following the full and partial settlements between the Parties. While a breadth of issues remained and have been considered by the Tribunal, the following became the focus of the Hearing:

1. Land Use

a) Whether the proposed “Mixed-Use High Density Residential” designation is appropriate for the Subject Lands.

b) Whether requiring a minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area (“GFA”) on the Subject Lands is appropriate or justified.

2. Urban Design

a) Whether the Applications facilitate appropriate urban design and provide for sufficient details to ensure the delivery of same.

b) Whether the proposed relief from required building heights is appropriate.

c) Whether the proposed relief from required tower floorplates, including tower footprints and horizontal widths, is appropriate.

3. Transportation

a) Whether the Applications adequately consider and address transportation impacts from other proposed developments in the surrounding area.

b) Whether the Applications adequately consider and address impacts to Highway 85 infrastructure and operations.

4. Parkland Dedication

a) Whether the Applications adequately address parkland dedication requirements.

WITNESSES

Land Use

11The Tribunal heard from four witnesses that were qualified by the Tribunal to provide independent expert opinion evidence on matters pertaining to land use planning:

1. The Appellant called Pierre Chauvin, a Partner with MHBC Planning Limited. Mr. Chauvin is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practicing land use planning for over 25 years.

2. The Appellant also called Andrea Sinclair, a Partner with MHBC Planning Limited. Ms. Sinclair is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practising land use planning and urban design since 2006. While Ms. Sinclair’s evidence related primarily to urban design matters, she did proffer certain opinions pertaining to land use planning.

3. The City called John Vos, a Senior Planner with the City. Mr. Vos is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practicing land use planning since 2012.

4. The City also called Ric Martins, a Senior Policy Planner with the City. Mr. Martins is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practicing land use planning for over 18 years.

12With respect to Issue 1b regarding the appropriate amount of non-residential GFA required on the Subject Lands, the Appellant also called Joe Benninger, a licensed realtor and the Vice President and Sales Representative of CBRE Limited. Mr. Benninger is a Certified Commercial Investment Member and has over 27 years of experience as a commercial real estate agent in Southwestern Ontario, with a particular focus on the Waterloo region. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in Commercial and Investment Real Estate.

Urban Design

13The Tribunal heard from two witnesses that proffered evidence pertaining to urban design. Each witness was qualified differently based on their respective areas of expertise, as follows:

1. As noted above, the Appellant called Ms. Sinclair. In addition to her aforementioned qualifications, Ms. Sinclair holds a Bachelor of Environmental Studies, Honours Planning, with an Urban Design Specialisation, and a Master of Urban Design Studies. While being qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in land use planning, she was further recognised as having expertise pertaining to urban design.

2. The City called Mark Reid, a Partner with Urban Strategies Inc. Mr. Reid is an accredited Landscape Architect and a member of both the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and the Canadian Association of Landscape Architects. He has been practicing urban design for over 33 years. He holds a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and a Bachelor of Arts. He was qualified by the Tribunal as a landscape architect with expertise in urban design.

Transportation

14The Tribunal heard from two witnesses that proffered evidence pertaining to transportation. Each witness was qualified differently based on their respective areas of expertise, as follows:

1. The Appellant called Rajan Philips, a Senior Project Manager at Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited. Mr. Philips is a Registered Professional Engineer with over 30 years of experience as a transportation planner and transportation engineer. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the areas of Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering.

2. The City called Jenny Renaud, the Manager of Transportation Engineering at the City. Ms. Renaud is a Certified Engineering Technologist with the Ontario Association of Certified Technicians and Technologists. She has over 20 years of experience in traffic operations. She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence as a Certified Engineering Technologist.

15The Tribunal also heard from Paul Santos, who appeared under summons by the City. Mr. Santos is a Senior Project Manager with the Highway Corridor Management Section of the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO” or “Ministry”) and has worked with the Ministry in various capacities for over 24 years. He was subpoenaed to provide factual evidence generally pertaining to the Ministry’s development application review process, including Multiple Development Traffic Impact Study (“Multi-Development TIS”) requests.

Parkland Dedication

16The City called Robin Milne, the Director of Parks, Forestry and Cemetery Services at the City. Mr. Milne has 28 years of experience in municipal parks planning and management. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Municipal Parkland Management.

REVISED INSTRUMENTS

17The initial Applications were updated in advance of the Hearing in response to comments received during the City’s application review process. In the final days of the Hearing, the Appellant submitted further revisions to the Tribunal, in the form of a Revised OPA and a Revised ZBA (together, “Revised Instruments”), which were marked as Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 27, respectively. The Revised Instruments reflect certain additional proposed modifications resulting from the full and partial MOS, as well as various modifications that were recommended or conceded to by the witnesses in response to the issues.

Revised Concept Plan

18In support of the Revised Instruments, an updated draft concept plan showing a proposed general layout and placement of buildings, roads, trails, open spaces and amenity areas on the Subject Lands (“Revised Concept Plan”) was prepared by the Appellant and presented to the Tribunal as an attachment to numerous documents marked as exhibits and referenced throughout this Decision.

19The Revised Concept Plan became a key focus of the Hearing, particularly in response to Issue 2: Urban Design, with a substantial portion of the evidence proffered relating thereto. However, as was submitted by counsel to the Appellant and proffered by numerous witnesses, the purpose of the Revised Concept Plan is to inform the planning instruments for approval by demonstrating how proposed uses on the Subject Lands might be arranged as a result of same. The Revised Concept Plan itself is not before the Tribunal for approval, nor does it represent a site plan pursuant to s. 41 of the Act.

20Accordingly, the following analysis of the Issues before the Tribunal focuses on the evidence proffered in relation to the Applications, as proposed to be modified by the Revised Instruments.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Context

Site and Area Context

21The Subject Lands consist of approximately 7.5 hectares of land between King Street North and Weber Street North, southwest of the Highway 85 and King Street North interchange, in the City. The western portion of the Subject Lands is vacant. The eastern portion is currently occupied by a former hotel building, which is no longer operational, surrounded by surface parking lots.

22The Subject Lands are accessed from and bounded to the east by a service road (King Street North Service Road), which branches off King Street North approximately 125 metres (“m”) south of the Subject Lands at a signalised intersection. To the west, the Subject Lands are accessed from and bounded by Weber Street North. The Subject Lands are further bounded by employment lands and the Forwell Creek to the north, and commercial uses to the south.

23To the northeast, beyond the Highway 85 and King Street North interchange, is Conestoga Mall and the Conestoga Light Rail Transit station. To the northwest are employment uses that are predominantly accessed from Weber Street North. To the west of the Subject Lands, on the opposite side of Weber Street North, is Sugarbush Park, open space, and a low-rise residential neighbourhood. To the immediate south is an automobile dealership and medical office building, with vacant lands and additional commercial uses beyond. To the east, on the opposite side of King Street North, is an office building and The Club Willowells – a high-density mixed-use development.

Issue 1: Land Use

Existing Context

24The western portion of the Subject Lands is designated “Employment” on Schedule A, “Business Employment” on Schedule A1, “Minor Corridor” on Schedule B, and “Medium Density Employment” with a maximum height of 27 m (9 storeys) on Schedule B1 of the City’s Official Plan (“COP”).

25Notably, the western portion of the Subject Lands was removed from the Regional Employment Area of the Region Official Plan (“ROP”), through an employment land conversion, following the approval of ROP Amendment No. 6 (“ROPA 6”) by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on April 12, 2023.

26The eastern portion of the Subject Lands is designated “Commercial” on Schedule A, “Corridor Commercial” on Schedule A1, “Major Corridor” on Schedule B, and “High Density” with a maximum height of 81 m (25 storeys) on Schedule B1 of the COP.

27The eastern portion of the Subject Lands is further subject to Specific Provision Area No. 44 (“SPA 44”) on Schedule A6 of the COP, which specifically supports a transition away from automobile-oriented corridor commercial uses to higher density uses that support higher frequency transit and active transportation, including ancillary commercial uses developed in conjunction with higher-density office employment uses, and multiple residential uses in mixed-use buildings.

28In addition to the application of SPA 44 on the easterly portion of the Subject Lands, the entirety of the Subject Lands is subject to Specific Provision Area No. 76 (“SPA 76”), which provides for the following:

2. a) Should a portion of the lands be conveyed to the City of Waterloo for a municipal pathway, servicing, and/or other public purposes, any permitted residential density attributed to the conveyed lands as set out in this Plan may be added to the density of the retained lands, subject to approval of a site-specific zoning by-law.

(p. 1201, Exhibit 1)

Proposed Context: Revised Instruments

29The Revised OPA, attached hereto as Attachment 1, seeks to redesignate the Subject Lands from “Employment” and “Commercial” to “Mixed-Use High Density Residential” and “Open Space”. The Revised OPA further seeks to delete the policies of SPA 44 as they apply to the Subject Lands and to replace the policies of SPA 76 with new site-specific policies that will facilitate the development of the Subject Lands as a mixed-use site with a combination of residential, commercial, employment, and institutional uses.

30Specifically, the Revised OPA includes, but is not limited to, the following new SPA 76 policies pertaining to land use:

2. It shall be a policy of Council that these lands will be planned and developed in a manner that recognizes the subject lands shall:

a. have a planned function as a mixed-use site with a combination of residential, commercial, employment, and institutional uses.

b. represent an opportunity to accommodate an appropriate portion of the City’s projected residential, commercial, and employment growth on a mixed-use site.

h. be designed with consideration of other parcels in the broader area to provide a mix of uses that serve the community and to accommodate high density development.

l. be consistent with the land use and compatibility policies of this Plan and shall not negatively impact the viability of lands designated Flexible Industrial north of the lands due to possible adverse affects on the sensitive land use by industrial operations contemplated within the Flexible Industrial designation.

3. It is anticipated that Lands will be developed in two or more stages, with each stage being phased or developed on a block-by-block basis. It is the intent of this Plan that the entire Lands be comprehensively planned prior to development, to ensure:

• the provision of sufficient community uses and community infrastructure.

• the provision of sufficient commercial and employment uses.

4. Lands within Specific Provision Area 76 shall be subject to the following site-specific policies:

b. In addition to the uses contemplated in policy 10.2.2.4(3) of this Plan, the following uses shall be permitted [on] lands designated Mixed-Use High Density Residential within this Specific Provision Area:

i. Academic uses

ii. Advanced technology

iii. Food store within a multi-unit building

iv. Light assembly / light manufacturing / light processing operations, including but not limited to the production of high-value, high technology products, which do not result in emissions of odours, fumes, noise, cinder (including smoke, soot, ash), dust, vibrations, heat, glare (lighting), or electrical interference

v. Spiritual Uses

c. The Zoning By-law may further restrict the range of uses (including Academic) to facilitate compatibility with other land uses on and off the site.

d. Freestanding residential uses may be permitted on part of the lands designated Mixed-Use High Density Residential within this Specific Provision Area, generally in locations internal to the site abutting a private road, provided the planned function of the entire lands is achieved, including in accordance with 4) e. below. The Zoning By-law may further delineate the location of freestanding residential buildings on the site.

e. Lands designated Mixed-Use High Density Residential within this Specific Provision Area shall contain sufficient non-residential building floor area to achieve the planned function pursuant to 2) a. above, including a mix of commercial, community, employment, institutional, and academic uses (excluding residences), in accordance with the implementing zoning by-law.

g. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Zoning By-law may prohibit certain uses within this Specific Provision Area, including outdoor storage, drive-throughs, and gas stations.

(pp. 6-9, Exhibit 25)

31The Revised ZBA, attached hereto as Attachment 2, seeks to rezone the Subject Lands from “Business Employment (E1-27)” and “Corridor Commercial (C5-81)” to “Conservation (OS3)”, “Residential Mixed-Use 81 (RMU-81)” with site-specific and holding provisions, and “Residential Mixed-Use 40 (RMU-40)” with site-specific and holding provisions.

Issue 1a: Land Use Designation

Submissions and Analysis

32In Mr. Chauvin’s opinion, the Subject Lands provide an opportunity to support a significant amount of population and employment growth on an underutilised parcel of land. He proffered that the Revised Instruments will facilitate a mixed-use development in an area of the City that is otherwise dominated by commercial and employment uses, yet is supportive of residential intensification, well served by municipal services and infrastructure, and well located in terms of its proximity to the transportation network, public transit network (including three higher-order transit stations), multiple active transportation routes, local and regional employment opportunities, commercial uses, and educational facilities.

33Mr. Chauvin directed the Tribunal to Policy 2.4.1.3 e) of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), which states that planning authorities should support redevelopment of commercially-designated retail lands to support mixed-use residential. That, he opined, is exactly what the Revised Instruments will facilitate.

34Mr. Chauvin proffered that the COP directs intensification and a mix of land uses to Major Corridors (including King Street North) and Minor Corridors (including Weber Street North) and contemplates increased heights and densities on the Subject Lands. He directed the Tribunal to s. 3.6.2 of the COP, which sets out two policies pertaining to Major and Minor Corridors:

(1) Major Corridors generally connect a series of Major Nodes and/or the Primary Node and have the greatest capacity and potential to support higher frequency transit. As such, they will be planned to accommodate medium-high to high-density uses to provide for sufficient future population and employment growth to support planned transit service levels.

(2) Minor Corridors connect a series of Major Nodes, Minor Nodes and/or the Primary Node. Planned land uses within Minor Corridors will be predominantly medium to medium high density residential with some limited areas having a planned function other than residential. A limited amount of commercial uses are permitted as set out in the applicable land use designations. Where lands within a Minor Corridor are adjacent to lands designated as Low Density Residential, height and/or density will be limited as defined by this Plan and the Zoning By-law.

(emphasis added, pp. 833-834, Exhibit 1)

35Mr. Chauvin further proffered that s. 10.2.2.9 of the COP, regarding the Corridor Commercial designation (currently applicable to the eastern portion of the Subject Lands), further recognises that:

[…] certain portions of the Major Corridor along King Street have historically been designated for Corridor Commercial uses. It is the intent of this Plan that in some instances, these areas should transition away from automobile-oriented uses and toward higher-density employment uses, and possibly residential uses, that that [sic] are more supportive of transit and active transportation […]

(p. 1040, Exhibit 1)

36Policy 10.2.2.9(6) of the COP specifically pertains to lands designated Corridor Commercial within portions of the King Street Major Corridor, including the Subject Lands. It strongly encourages development to include office uses that support higher frequency transit, permits residential uses where they are demonstrated to be appropriate, and requires the implementing zoning by-law to include provisions for ancillary commercial and retail uses to be developed in conjunction with higher-density office employment uses, as provided for in SPA 44.

37The policies of SPA 44, Mr. Chauvin opined, support the transition of the Subject Lands to higher density uses that support higher frequency transit and permit multiple residential uses in mixed-use buildings:

11.1.44 Specific Provision Area 44 (Specific Corridor Commercial lands)

(2) To support the transition of lands within this SPA from automobile- oriented corridor commercial uses to higher density uses that support higher frequency transit and active transportation:

(a) The implementing Zoning By-law for the defined area will include provisions for ancillary commercial uses to be developed in conjunction with higher-density office employment uses […]

(b) Multiple Residential uses may be contemplated in mixed-use buildings, subject to an amendment to the Zoning By-law, provided they are compatible with surrounding uses and that they do not interfere with the satisfactory operation and development of the area for the defined commercial purposes. Such application will be subject to the complete development application policies of this Plan and shall include consideration of potential impacts related to noise, traffic and land use compatibility and other matters as may be identified through the pre-submission consultation process. Residential uses will only be considered where adequate amenities and services exist to support the residential use.

(p. 1141, Exhibit 1)

38Mr. Vos, on the other hand, also turned to SPA 44 but opined that the intent of policy 2(b), above, is to ensure that any residential uses introduced on the Subject Lands will be compatible with employment uses to the north and south and not interfere with the intended commercial purpose of the area, which must be maintained and supported. He proffered that there needs to be enough information to help justify the change in land use, which in his opinion has not been provided by the Appellant. While SPA 44 recognises that residential uses may occur, it is Mr. Vos’ opinion that the planned function of the area is for commercial and industrial employment uses.

39Mr. Vos proffered that the employment area to the north of the Subject Lands is important and should be allowed to continue to function and grow over time to ensure that its long-term economic viability is preserved, consistent with provincial direction. The introduction of residential uses on the Subject Lands, he proffered, could limit the ability of employment operations to the north to expand and support a sustainable economy in the City.

40Accordingly, it is Mr. Vos’ opinion that the Subject Lands should maintain commercial and employment designations with additional permissions for residential, rather than designating the lands for residential with permissions for commercial and employment. That, in his opinion, would maintain the intended commercial function of the Subject Lands.

41Notwithstanding his opinion in that regard, Mr. Vos did proffer that the Subject Lands are within a Corridor and are appropriate for residential intensification. He therefore supports adding residential uses provided they are well-designed and appropriately located to avoid impacts from industrial and other nuisances, and so that the commercial function of the Subject Lands is maintained.

Findings

42The Tribunal is satisfied that, combined with the appropriate site-specific provisions, the Mixed-Use High Density Residential designation is appropriate for the Subject Lands (save for those lands to be designated “Open Space”).

43In response to Mr. Vos’ opinion that the justification to support the change in land use from employment and commercial designations to a mixed-use residential designation has not been provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that such justification was provided to and accepted by the Region when they approved the employment land conversion request and removed the Subject Lands from the Regional Employment Areas through ROPA 6. The Tribunal also finds that the existing policy framework for the Subject Lands further supports a mixed-use residential designation with site-specific policies for the provision of non-residential uses.

44Beginning with the Major and Minor Corridor policies of s. 3.6.2, the COP directs that land uses on the eastern half of the Subject Lands (Major Corridor) will be planned to accommodate uses to provide for both population and employment growth. On the western half of the Subject Lands (Minor Corridor), planned land uses “will be predominantly medium to medium high density residential” with only “some limited areas having a planned function other than residential” and only limited amounts of commercial uses being permitted.

45More specific to the Subject Lands, policy 10.2.2.9(6) of the COP strongly encourages the eastern half of the Subject Lands to include office uses in order to generate employment densities that support higher frequency transit use, but also permits residential uses where it is demonstrated that such uses are appropriate.

46SPA 44 reiterates the desire to transition the Subject Lands to higher density uses that support higher frequency transit and active transportation, permitting both employment uses (with a particular emphasis on higher-density office uses) and residential uses in mixed-use buildings, provided the latter does not interfere with the satisfactory operation and development of the area for the defined commercial purposes.

47The Tribunal takes the meaning of “area” in SPA 44 to refer to the entirety of the special provision area to which SPA 44 applies. However, a broader interpretation could include the “surrounding uses”, as referenced in the policy, and therefore refer to the broader commercial and employment areas in proximity to SPA 44 and the Subject Lands.

48In either instance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised Instruments align with the intent of SPA 44 and the overarching objectives of the Corridor policies by recognising that the Subject Lands provide an opportunity to accommodate a range of higher density uses with a mixed-use function, considering the potential impacts on the viability of adjacent employment lands, and requiring that uses on the Subject Lands “shall not negatively impact the viability of lands designated Flexible Industrial” to the north.

49The Tribunal further notes that the Revised ZBA includes holding provisions related to sensitive land uses and the submission of a noise study and air quality assessment, to the satisfaction of the City and the Region, to further ensure compatibility between sensitive uses on the Subject Lands and existing nearby employment uses. Issue 1b: Minimum Non-Residential GFA

Submissions and Analysis

50Mr. Benninger proffered that overall office volume transactions rates in the City are very low, opining that office is currently not an appealing asset class, with new office development at an absolute standstill. He proffered that the dynamics of the current office market reflect high vacancy rates, downsizing and negative absorption rates, shorter lease terms and declining rental rates, and a decline in office space due to a freeze on new developments and the conversion of existing office spaces to residential uses.

51Mr. Benninger further proffered that the Subject Lands are located within walking distance to two major retail nodes: Conestoga Mall to the northeast and the King/Weber retail node to the south, both of which contain grocery stores and a range of retail providers.

52Accordingly, it was Mr. Benninger’s opinion that the Subject Lands are not a good candidate location for office or retail development, particularly with respect to the needs of the broader travelling public. In his opinion, the appropriate amount of retail space on the Subject Lands should be limited only to that which is intended to serve the day-to-day needs of future residents.

53Mr. Benninger’s opinions were supported by Mr. Chauvin, who opined that the Revised Instruments support the achievement of a complete community in the surrounding area (identified as the “Conestoga District” in the COP) which, he proffered, has a number of commercial and employment uses but is lacking the residential uses needed to achieve a complete community. He directed the Tribunal to Section 3.9 of the COP which states, in part, that the City will plan to be a complete community “at the City and Planning District level” (p. 849, Exhibit 1). In his opinion, the Revised Instruments achieve this objective by providing not only for residential uses, but for flexibility to accommodate office, retail, and academic uses to meet current and future market demands.

54Mr. Chauvin further emphasised that the Revised ZBA provides, at section f), that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, “multi-unit residential buildings” – which permit purely residential uses – are not permitted adjacent to King Street North Service Road and Weber Street North. Accordingly, he proffered, those frontages are assured to be animated with other types of uses that are permitted and contemplated by the Revised ZBA. The Revised Instruments therefore provide not only for a broad range of use permissions, but regulations as to where different uses can be located to ensure that mixed-use buildings are in the best locations and that not every building can be purely residential.

55It was therefore Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that it is not necessary to include a minimum requirement for non-residential GFA in the Revised Instruments. However, Mr. Chauvin conceded that there are certain realities present in terms of providing an adequate living environment for the number of people contemplated by the proposed development.

56To that end, Mr. Chauvin proffered that there may be a need to have non-residential uses, such as a small variety store, dry-cleaning facility and other service commercial uses, on the Subject Lands. He opined that a requirement for non-residential GFA in the order of 1,000 m2 to 3,000 m2 was reasonable, noting that the Revised Concept Plan illustrates approximately 4,000 m2 along the King Street Service Road frontage which, in his opinion, could be achieved “quite easily” on the Subject Lands. Accordingly, Mr. Chauvin proffered that he would not have a problem recommending a required minimum GFA of 3,000 m2 of non-residential uses in the Revised Instruments.

57Mr. Vos proffered that the COP is structured such that there is an intentional framework for accessing commercial uses at different scales. While he conceded that retail, food stores and restaurants are all well provided for in proximity to the Subject Lands, he proffered that complete communities are an important consideration not just at the City and district scales, but at the neighbourhood scale as well. He opined that the Subject Lands, at full build out, will establish a neighbourhood unto itself, therefore requiring a mix of land uses to support residents.

58It was therefore Mr. Vos’ opinion that, while the Revised Instruments permit a mix of land uses, a sufficient amount and range of uses ought to be required by the Revised Instruments. To that end, Mr. Vos supported Mr. Chauvin’s recommended inclusion of 3,000 m2 of non-residential space to support future residents on the Subject Lands. However, in Mr. Vos’ opinion, a further amount of dedicated employment uses (e.g., advanced technology, light industrial assembly and processing, and other uses compatible with sensitive uses) should be required by the Revised Instruments, though he did not recommend a specific amount.

59Mr. Vos’ opinion was supported by Mr. Martins, who directed the Tribunal to policy 2.H.1.14 of the ROP, which supports and encourages local municipalities to identify, designate, and protect local employment lands outside of Regional Employment Areas:

2.H.1.14 The Region supports and encourages area municipalities to identify and designate local employment lands outside of the employment areas designated on Map 3, and to develop policies to protect these lands for employment uses over the long-term.

(p. 646, Exhibit 1)

60Where the redevelopment of local employment lands is proposed, policy 2.H.1.15 encourages local municipalities to retain space for a similar number of jobs to remain accommodated on the development site:

2.H.1.15 Where a development application is submitted to redevelop any local employment lands located outside of the employment areas designated on Map 3, the Region encourages the area municipality to retain space for a similar number of jobs to remain accommodated on the site.

(p. 646, Exhibit 1)

61Mr. Martins further directed the Tribunal to policy 10.3.1(9) of the COP, which states, in part:

(9) Where an employment land conversion occurs through the municipal comprehensive review, initiated by the Region, the implementing Official Plan framework to facilitate the conversion will include:

(a) appropriate minimum employment densities required to be developed in conjunction with non-employment uses;

(emphasis added, p. 1048, Exhibit 1)

62In Mr. Martins’ opinion, the above polices, read together, support his position that the Revised Instruments should secure a minimum amount of non-residential floor area. To that end, he supported Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that a minimum amount of 3,000 m2 of non-residential uses on the Subject Lands is appropriate but furthered that, while 3,000 m2 of non-residential GFA would be sufficient for commercial uses, an additional amount of dedicated employment GFA (i.e., not only “commercial” or “non-residential”) should also be included, as proffered by Mr. Vos.

63Notwithstanding the above, when pressed for an appropriate amount, Mr. Martins conceded that he is not qualified to provide an exact number and, as proffered at paragraph 26 of his Witness Statement, it is his opinion that maintaining opportunity for commercial and employment uses is both in the public interest and consistent with Official Plan policy (p. 179, Exhibit 9). Similarly, at paragraph 46 of his Witness Statement, Mr. Martins opines that the Subject Lands should maintain sufficient employment opportunities, and that permitting the range of uses found within the “Business Employment” designation would be appropriate “in addition to allowing a wider range of mixed commercial and residential uses” (pp. 183-184, Exhibit 9).

Findings

64The Tribunal is satisfied that, in accordance with the existing policy framework for the Subject Lands, the Revised Instruments maintain sufficient opportunity for commercial and employment uses by permitting for a range of same. The Revised OPA further requires that the Subject Lands “shall contain” sufficient non-residential building floor area, including commercial, community, employment, institution and academic uses (excluding residences), to support the planned function of the Subject Lands as a mixed-use site with a combination of residential, commercial, employment and institutional uses.

65The Tribunal notes that the existing policy framework, including SPA 44, does not restrict the amount of residential permitted on the Subject Lands, nor does it require that a specific amount of commercial or employment GFA be provided. However, as noted by Mr. Martins, where local employment lands are redeveloped, the ROP encourages the retention of space for jobs (albeit a “similar number” of jobs, to which there are currently none on the Subject Lands) and the COP specifically requires that, where an employment land conversion occurs, the implementing official plan policy framework “will include appropriate minimum employment densities required to be developed in conjunction with non-employment uses.”

66In that regard, Messrs. Chauvin, Vos and Martins agree that 3,000 m2 is an appropriate minimum requirement for non-residential GFA on the Subject Lands. While there was a desire by the City’s witnesses to include an additional requirement for a minimum employment GFA, limited justification was given in support of an appropriate amount other than to suggest that more is better, which the Tribunal does not accept as adequate justification.

67The Tribunal therefore finds that it is appropriate and in the public interest to include a minimum requirement of 3,000 m2 of non-residential GFA on the Subject Lands, and hereby orders that the Revised OPA and the Revised ZBA each be modified to include a requirement for same, in accordance with paragraphs [121] and [122] of this Decision and Order.

Issue 2: Urban Design

Planned Context: Revised Instruments

68The Revised OPA includes, but is not limited to, the following policies pertaining to urban design:

2. It shall be a policy of Council that these lands will be planned and developed in a manner that recognizes the subject lands shall:

d. be human-scale, achieved through design and massing strategies such as, but not limited to, the use of podiums, stepbacks, well-proportioned street enclosures, human-scale dimensions, varied building heights, pedestrian-scale lighting, and complementary landscaping (including trees).

e. be planned to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and cyclist linkages through and abutting the site, and connect to the surrounding street and public trail network, including completion of the Forwell Trail along the northerly boundary of the lands.

f. provide an active transportation connection for both residents of the development and the general public, oriented north to south, sited generally in the middle of the Lands, to provide for future connection to adjacent lands to the south when the lands are redeveloped (the “Connectivity Spine”).

g. incorporate open spaces that are strategically located on the lands, particularly adjacent to the Connectivity Spine, that are landscaped, and planned for active and passive recreational uses by both residents of the development and potentially the general public.

i. have a high standard of site and building design (including architecture, materiality, and landscaping) along major roads and prominent locations visible from the streets and public places, in accordance with the policies of this Plan and with approved Urban Design Guidelines, as a prominent gateway site within Waterloo.

k. have a high standard for screening of utilities, loading and parking areas, through landscaping and the strategic layout of the site.

4. Lands within Specific Provision Area 76 shall be subject to the following site-specific policies:

f. The development of the Lands shall incorporate the Connectivity Spine as an organized element interior to the Lands for new buildings, amenity spaces, and open spaces, which shall be designed for connectivity and placemaking on the Lands and to adjacent properties to the south.

k. Tall buildings will be designed with a clear delineation between the podium and the tower portions will be achieved through massing strategies specified in the implementing zoning by-law.

l. Notwithstanding Schedule B1 (Height and Density) and policy 3.4(1)(f), building height will vary within the site, and transition from a maximum of 8 storeys along Weber Street North to a maximum of 30 storeys towards the King Street North Service Road. The Zoning By-law will specify maximum building height limits across the site.

m. Underground and structured parking shall be prioritized as more land-efficient alternatives to surface parking.

n. Density, landscaped open space, parking, loading, amenity area, and common outdoor area shall be calculated on the entire parcel as a whole, excluding any lands conveyed to the City.

69The Revised ZBA further limits the permitted heights within 30 m of Weber Street North to eight storeys, less than the currently permitted nine storeys on the west half of the Subject Lands. Beyond 30 m from Weber Street North to the King Street North Service Road frontage, the Revised ZBA increases the current permitted heights – from nine storeys on the west half and 25 storeys on the east half of the Subject Lands – to 28 storeys, with additional permissions for up to two towers with maximum heights of up to 30 storeys.

70The Revised ZBA further proposes an increase in the maximum horizontal tower dimension from 40 m to 44 m, and an increase in the maximum tower footprint from 1,000 m2 to 1,050 m2.

71The following holding provisions pertaining to urban design are also included in the Revised ZBA:

a) Verification to the satisfaction of the CITY that the development is consistent with a detailed master site plan as part of a Site Plan Application in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act[.] The master site plan shall address matters including, but not limited to, private streets, blocks, building placement, public spaces, landscaped open space, common amenity areas, active transportation connections, community uses, and infrastructure consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines prepared by MHBC, dated October, 2024.

i) An updated Wind Study to the satisfaction of the City of Waterloo.

Issue 2a: Appropriate Urban Design and Sufficiency of Details

Submissions and Analysis

72Ms. Sinclair proffered that the existing character of the Subject Lands and surrounding area is quite lacking, and that development of the Subject Lands represents an opportunity to improve the local context. She opined that the Applications ensure a high standard of urban design that achieves a sense of place through the facilitation of gathering areas across the Subject Lands, interesting streetscapes, and improved connectivity through the provision of:

• the east-west active transportation trail extension of the Forwell Trail along the north of the Subject Lands;
• an east-west active transportation connection south of the proposed primary street; and
• a “connectivity spine” running north-south through the centre of the Subject Lands.

73In Ms. Sinclair’s opinion, an appropriate level of urban design consideration has been completed to adequately inform the Revised Instruments. While some regulations have been included in the Revised ZBA, such as requiring active frontages and adequate setbacks along the proposed private street, Ms. Sinclair was of the opinion that appropriate flexibility has been provided in the Revised ZBA such that the City and Appellant can work together at future stages to determine the most suitable tower locations, buildings designs, and other site details, rather than “shrink wrapping” a development concept through zoning regulations.

74In support of that approach, Ms. Sinclair directed the Tribunal to s. 3.11.5 of the COP, “Urban Design Implementation”, and proffered that the policies in that section underscore the importance of the site plan process in implementing the City’s urban design policies, vision and direction. For example:

(3) Building Massing and Design: Building massing, orientation and design […] shall be determined through site plan control and shall be subject to City design guidelines and performance standards. […]

(4) Sustainable Design: […] The City may require specific sustainable design elements through the site plan process as provided through the Planning Act.

(5) Design Guidelines: […] Design guidelines shall be used to evaluate development proposals and guide such proposals through the development review process with emphasis on the site plan process. […]

(6) Design Studies: The City may require urban design studies such as project-specific Urban Design Guidelines, massing studies, street sections, context plans and master plan guidelines, in support of proposed development, including associated public realm improvement projects. Urban design studies shall have regard to the Urban Design objectives and policies established in this Plan and may be used to guide site plan development.

(7) Impact Studies: The City may require shadow impact analysis, wind impact analysis, noise studies, snow disposition studies and Heritage Impact Assessments, to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on surrounding properties, public spaces or amenity areas and other design studies. The city shall establish impact evaluation criteria and shall implement these through the development review process with emphasis on site plan control. […]

(emphasis added, pp. 864-865, Exhibit 1)

75Ms. Sinclair proffered that the Revised Instruments use holding provisions, including the requirement for a detailed master site plan, as referenced in paragraph [71] above, to ensure that additional requirements of the COP will be appropriately addressed through the site plan control process, where more detailed designs can be established in collaboration with the City.

76Mr. Reid opined that the Subject Lands represent a unique opportunity for city building, being sufficiently sized to accommodate a street and block network with a hierarchy of streets that could better address the size and orientation of buildings on the Subject Lands. However, as currently drafted, it is Mr. Reid’s opinion that the Revised Concept Plan is prefaced on the ability to repeat a single built form across the Subject Lands. That, in his opinion, is not acceptable urban design, nor aligned with relevant policy and guideline documents.

77Notably, Mr. Reid did not provide an opinion with respect to the Revised Instruments (or previous iterations thereof), which he conceded to not having reviewed in advance of the Hearing. Rather, his evidence pertained to the Revised Concept Plan that, in his opinion, is insufficient and premature, yet fundamental to understanding urban design on the Subject Lands in advance of the site plan approval process.

78While touching on a range of details pertaining to the Revised Concept Plan, Mr. Reid highlighted what he referred to as a monotonous built form, lacking human scale, interest, or diversity that would otherwise contribute to positive place making. He opined that the large tower floorplates represent a repetitive, bulky built form that will limit sky views and overwhelm pedestrians, and that the Revised Concept Plan “retreats from the edges” of the Subject Lands, clustering uses to the centre with large surface parking areas along the peripheries, counter to the City’s urban design policies and guidelines.

79Notwithstanding his views of the Revised Concept Plan, Mr. Reid did acknowledge that the site plan approval process is an appropriate time to address many of the City’s policy concerns related to urban design and to determine the ultimate building design concept. Findings

80Mr. Reid was successful in convincing the Tribunal that the Revised Concept Plan is an imperfect one, with perhaps much to be desired in terms of detailed revisions. However, the Tribunal is not compelled that any potential shortcomings in the Revised Concept Plan represent a failure of the Revised Instruments to facilitate a future development capable of achieving a high standard of urban design. On the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the Revised Instruments prioritise the provision of urban design outcomes and future collaboration with the City, deferring the appropriate matters to the more detailed site plan approval process in accordance with the policy direction of the COP.

81Notwithstanding the above finding, the Tribunal notes that the Revised ZBA includes the following holding provision:

a) Verification to the satisfaction of the CITY that the development is consistent with a detailed master site plan as part of a Site Plan Application in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act[.] The master site plan shall address matters including, but not limited to, private streets, blocks, building placement, public spaces, landscaped open space, common amenity areas, active transportation connections, community uses, and infrastructure consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines prepared by MHBC, dated October, 2024.

(emphasis added, p. 10, Exhibit 27)

82The emphasised language, underlined in the above quotation, was proposed to be added by Mr. Chauvin on the final day of witness testimony during the Appellant’s Reply, following the conclusion of the City’s evidence. Mr. Chauvin proffered that the Urban Design Guidelines prepared by MHBC, dated October 2024 (“2024 UDGs”) speak to a transition in building heights towards King Street North with lower heights along Weber Street North. Including a reference to same in the above holding provision, he opined, emphasises that desired transition.

83The Tribunal notes that the 2024 UDGs (attached as Appendix ‘E’ to Ms. Sinclair’s Witness Statement; p. 903, Exhibit 8), rely on – and incorporate – the Revised Concept Plan as the foundational plan for the proposed development to “offer guidance and direction on establishing the overall vision, character, and urban form of the Site” (p. 922, Exhibit 8).

84While the 2024 UDGs state that the master site plan for the Subject Lands will continue to evolve and be refined through the site plan approval process, the Tribunal finds that the proposed additional language to the holding provision put forward by Mr. Chauvin has the effect of enshrining the Revised Concept Plan as the basis for the required master site plan. Indeed, the revised holding provision language specifically requires that the master site plan shall address matters including but not limited to private streets, blocks, building placement, public spaces, landscaped open spaces, and common amenity areas consistent with the 2024 UDGs.

85That, the Tribunal finds, runs counter to the Appellant’s submissions that the Revised Concept Plan is not before the Tribunal for approval and that the site-specific details, including those contested by the City throughout the Hearing, ought to be appropriately addressed through the site plan approval process. Rather, the Tribunal finds that inclusion of the additional holding provision language has the effect of elevating the Revised Concept Plan to be a requirement of the Revised ZBA, such that approval of the Revised Instruments effectively results in approval of the Revised Concept Plan, along with the 2024 UDGs, which are not before the Tribunal for approval.

86Further, the Tribunal finds that approving the additional holding provision language would fetter the future site plan approval process by requiring that the forthcoming master site plan, which the holding provision requires be submitted as part of a site plan application in accordance with s. 41 of the Act, be consistent with the 2024 UDGs, including the Revised Concept Plan contained therein.

87The Tribunal therefore orders that the additional holding provision text, underlined in paragraph [81], above, be struck from the Revised ZBA such that the holding provision reads as follows:

a) Verification to the satisfaction of the CITY that the development is consistent with a detailed master site plan as part of a Site Plan Application in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act. The master site plan shall address matters including, but not limited to, private streets, blocks, building placement, public spaces, landscaped open space, common amenity areas, active transportation connections, community uses, and infrastructure.

Issue 2b: Height and Transition

Submissions and Analysis

88In Ms. Sinclair’s opinion, the proposed increase in building height permissions on the Subject Lands is minimal and will not significantly impact the surrounding community as there will be no adverse shadow impacts to the nearest low-rise residential areas, which are more than 300 m to the west of the Subject Lands.

89Ms. Sinclair proffered that while the City’s relevant policies and guidelines speak to positioning the greatest heights towards King Street North, the Revised Instruments provide flexibility regarding the specific allocation of height across the Subject Lands to ensure an appropriate transition can be achieved with respect to minimising impacts on the open space network across the Subject Lands.

90Ms. Sinclair’s opinion was supported by Mr. Chauvin, who proffered that, from a land use planning perspective, the Revised Instruments allow for intensification and redevelopment of a large gateway site that represents one of the last remaining sites of its size in the Built-Up Area of the City, lending itself to the provision of greater heights and density.

91Mr. Vos agreed with the Appellant’s witnesses that up to two buildings having maximum heights of 30 storeys on the Subject Lands is appropriate. Where Mr. Vos disagreed was in regard to how the Revised Instruments address the transition of heights, with the Appellant’s witnesses in favour of a more flexible approach and Mr. Vos in favour of a more regulated approach, such that height transitions are more explicitly defined in the Revised Instruments.

92In Mr. Reid’s opinion, permitting a maximum building height of 30 storeys creates the potential for overwhelming massing with limited sky views when viewed from King Street North. The increase in height from 28 to 30 storeys, he opined, is an entirely different urban design scenario that warrants submission of additional studies, including a shadow study by an accredited individual. He proffered that the shadow studies done to date do not adequately demonstrate that there will be sufficient protection from shadows on the public realm and private amenity areas on the Subject Lands.

93With respect to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the west of the Subject Lands, Mr. Reid did not provide an opinion, noting that he did not feel as though it was a foundational urban design issue.

Findings

94The Tribunal finds that the proposed height permissions of the Revised Instruments represent a modest increase from the currently permitted building heights, adequately consider the scale of the Subject Lands and its current and emerging context, and are appropriate for the Subject Lands.

95The Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised Instruments contain an appropriate framework to ensure that issues pertaining to wind, shadows and compatibility will be sufficiently addressed, facilitated by a balance of flexibility and regulation pertaining to the allocation of heights across the Subject Lands. Issue 2c: Increased Tower Floorplates

Submissions and Analysis

96The Revised Instruments provide for an increase in the permitted tower footprint from 1,000 m2 to 1,050 m2 and an increased horizontal tower width from 40 m to 44 m. In Ms. Sinclair’s opinion, the additional relief being sought in this regard will not create adverse impacts, noting that similar relief has been granted elsewhere in the City.

97Ms. Sinclair proffered that the proposed increases are to accommodate the Appellant’s typical floorplate and building envelopes that they have used in the past, allowing the Appellant to build more efficiently using a set of familiar building forms that lead to efficient building design and layouts. While Ms. Sinclair did concede that the Appellant has, in other instances, constructed residential buildings within the 40 m horizontal tower width, those instances utilised increased footprints of 1,360 m2.

98With respect to the requested tower footprint of 1,050 m2, Mr. Vos did not object to the proposed amendment, opining that 1,050 m2 is appropriate so long as the important details pertaining to tower design are addressed.

99Mr. Reid, on the other hand, opined that a 1,050 m2 tower footprint is “large and bulky”, and a 44 m building length will have a significant negative impact, reducing the sky view between buildings. To demonstrate his concern, Mr. Reid’s firm prepared various images of massing models showing views from surrounding streets that, when applied to the Revised Concept Plan, resulted in certain views containing a continuous building wall across much of the Subject Lands, with little reprieve or sky view.

100In Mr. Reid’s opinion, permitting the proposed relief to the zoning provisions would lead to a failure in urban design, forming a “brutal wall” that would be “a disastrous precedent” and “extremely problematic”, resulting in “monotonous architecture [that] will coat the development with an air of mediocrity” and omnipresent towers.

Findings

101The Tribunal agrees with the evidence of the land use planners and finds that the proposed increases to tower dimensions are appropriate, particularly given the size of the Subject Lands and the ability to separate buildings from each other – noting that the Revised Instruments do not request any relief from the City’s tower separation requirements.

102The Tribunal appreciates the modelling presented by Mr. Reid, which was effective in demonstrating that the simple replication of maximum tower floorplates across the Subject Lands can, if not appropriately allocated, result in undesirable outcomes. However, the Tribunal is not compelled that the increased tower dimensions will necessitate a failure in urban design, nor that such a perceived failure would be automatically remedied by denying the requested relief. Rather, the success or failure of urban design on the Subject Lands will depend on the forthcoming details to be addressed through the site plan approval process. Given the site-specific context, the Tribunal finds that providing flexibility with respect to tower dimensions on the Subject Lands will assist in achieving successful urban design outcomes.

Issue 3: Transportation

Planned Context: Revised Instruments

103The Revised ZBA includes the following holding provisions pertaining to transportation:

b) Verification the Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) has been updated to the satisfaction of the REGION and the CITY for development on the Lands exceeding 900 UNITS and/or 12,000 square metres of non-residential BUILDING FLOOR AREA.

c) Confirmation through Site Plan Control that Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) measures identified in the TIS and any TIS updates are appropriate based on the final plans and will be implemented as identified in the TIS to the satisfaction of the CITY and the REGION.

Submissions and Analysis

104Beginning at p. 340 of Exhibit 3 is a Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) for the Subject Lands prepared by Mr. Philips. The scope of the TIS includes a study of five intersections in proximity to the Subject Lands, an analysis of weekday morning and evening peak traffic periods, an examination of other area developments, and a study of traffic conditions – including active transportation and transit service – for the various stages of the proposed development and future planning horizons.

105The TIS includes a breakdown of six phases for completion of the proposed development over two stages. In Mr. Philips’ opinion, there is enough information currently available to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the Subject Lands to proceed with Stage 1. An update to the TIS would then be completed based on realised traffic impacts from Stage 1 prior to Stage 2 advancing, as required by a holding symbol in the Revised ZBA.

106Mr. Philips directed the Tribunal to the Region’s TIS Guidelines beginning at p. 2199 of Exhibit 1. He proffered that the Appellant’s TIS covers the information required by the Region and the MTO at the time the Applications were submitted, including an examination of two nearby development sites. While other development applications have been submitted since that time, each TIS for those proposals has an obligation to account for the forecasted transportation impacts resulting from the proposed development on the Subject Lands.

107Mr. Philips specifically noted that the TIS completed in April 2023 for the application at 450-460 Weber Street North and 435 King Street North, to the south of the Subject Lands, takes Stage 2 of the Appellant’s development proposal into account, presenting a near-total picture of the entire development that will impact the King Street North interchange at this location. He proffered that the results of that TIS are no different from the results of the TIS completed as part of the Applications, showing the same impacts on left and right turn lanes along King Street North.

108Based on the studies completed by Mr. Philips as part of the Applications, and those completed for development proposals submitted following the completion of same, it is Mr. Philips’ opinion that there is sufficient information available to assess the relevant cumulative transportation impacts and it is not necessary to complete any other TIS in advance of Stage 1 proceeding.

109Mr. Philips also opined that the existing Highway 85 interchange does not need to be expanded. While improvements to the turn lane capacity will be needed over the 10- to-20-year timeframe, it is his opinion that those improvements can be accommodated within the existing interchange footprint. Once the surrounding sites develop and traffic patterns are realised, he proffered, the Region will be able to accurately determine what modification are required to be made.

110Mr. Philips directed the Tribunal to MTO’s updated General Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, March 2023, beginning at p. 2257 of Exhibit 1. He noted that the new guidelines, which came into effect after the Applications were submitted, require that a Multi-Development TIS be completed. While Mr. Philips agrees that the Ministry’s position requiring the completion of Multi-Development TIS is valid, and a “responsible, professional thing to do”, he does not agree that a Multi-Development TIS needs to apply to Stage 1 of the proposed development.

111In Mr. Philips’ opinion, the Stage 2 TIS update can and will address any additional information required by MTO pertaining to a Multi-Development TIS (and any other matters included in an approved terms of reference for the TIS update). However, requiring a Multi-Development TIS to study all of the surrounding future development sites in advance of Stage 1 is, in Mr. Philips’ opinion, unnecessary based on the cumulative information the Parties already have at their disposal.

112Mr. Philips further proffered that the proposed changes in building heights (reflected in the Revised Instruments) and the potential change in occupancy of the buildings along Weber Street North to accommodate student residences rather than offices (reflected on the Revised Concept Plan) will have little to no impact on the outcome of the TIS and does not warrant revisions to same, as student housing generally reduces traffic impacts given lower automobile trip generation rates resulting from higher transit usage among students. In his opinion, the likelihood of students using the freeway during peak periods is negligible and therefore the analysis in the TIS would not result in a meaningfully different outcome despite the potential change in land use.

113Ms. Renaud agreed that the TIS prepared as part of the Applications addresses Stage 1 of the proposed development and that the City’s transportation network can accommodate traffic resulting from same. She further agreed that a holding provision requiring a TIS update in advance of Stage 2 of the development proposal is appropriate and will allow the City, Region and Ministry to ensure appropriate updates to the transportation network for the surrounding area are accounted for. However, Ms. Renaud clarified that the holding provision for an update to the TIS is distinct from a requirement for a Multi-Development TIS, which should be addressed through the Ministry’s permitting process.

114Indeed, Mr. Santos confirmed that, when the Ministry becomes aware that there are multiple developments in a study area, MTO will request a Multi-Development TIS from the municipality (either local or regional), which will evaluate the extent to which provincial highway improvements are required as a direct result of the combined effects of the proposed developments. To that end, Mr. Santos further confirmed that landowners are not a signatory to any legal agreements related thereto, nor involved beyond providing data associated with their respective development proposals.

Findings    

115The Tribunal notes that Mr. Philips and Ms. Renaud agree that Stage 1 of the proposed development can proceed without any further study. Both witnesses also agree that a holding provision requiring a TIS update in advance of Stage 2 of the development proposal is appropriate.

116In all other regards, the Tribunal relies on the evidence of Mr. Phillips, who was the only witness qualified as an expert in Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering, the only professional engineer called to testify, and the only author of a TIS at the Hearing. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Revised Instruments adequately consider and address transportation impacts associated with the development of the Subject Lands, with other proposed developments in the surrounding area, and with respect to Highway 85 infrastructure and operations.

Issue 4: Parkland Dedication

Submissions and Analysis

117Mr. Milne’s testimony can largely be summarised as expressing a desire on behalf of the City for the Subject Lands to contain a dedicated municipal park rather than cash-in-lieu thereof. In his opinion, there is suitable land available on the Subject Lands for an unencumbered municipal park and other recreational purposes. He proffered that the City needs to make every effort to secure parkland as part of new developments, with cash-in-lieu “just not acceptable” given the parkland deficiencies for most districts across the City. Accordingly, his primary concern was that the Revised Concept Plan does not include a public park, nor is he compelled by the Revised Concept Plan that the Appellant intends to provide adequate lands to accommodate the dedication of same.

118Mr. Milne conceded that he was unfamiliar with the Revised Instruments and had not reviewed same in advance of the Hearing. He was therefore not aware of the proposed holding provision in the Revised ZBA requiring a master site plan to be completed prior to the lifting of the hold but agreed that the site plan approval process is where parkland dedication requirements will ultimately be determined following iterative conversations between the Appellant and City. However, it was Mr. Milne’s opinion that the most appropriate time for identifying parkland requirements is at the pre-consultation stage of an application.

Findings

119The Tribunal is satisfied that there is nothing in the Revised Instruments that will prevent the dedication of parkland on the Subject Lands should it ultimately be determined to be appropriate and desirable. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the details surrounding same will be appropriately addressed at the time of site plan approval, recognising that the Revised Concept Plan is just that – a concept. It is not before the Tribunal for approval and remains a flexible, living document that may take on an altogether entirely different form than at present based on the more detailed planning exercises yet to come.

Conclusion

120The Tribunal finds that the Revised Instruments, to be modified in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions contained in this Decision and Order, provide a comprehensive planning framework for the Subject Lands that appropriately responds to the issues raised at the Hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised Instruments, as modified by the Tribunal, satisfy all statutory tests, represent good planning, and are in the public interest. The Tribunal therefore approves the modified Revised Instruments in accordance with the following Order.

ORDER

121THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and Amendment No. 43 to the Official Plan for the City of Waterloo is approved as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, subject to the following modification:

a) Part B, Item (17), is to be modified by deleting policy 4) e. of Section 11.1.76 (Specific Provision Area 76) and replacing it with the following:

e. Lands designated Mixed-Use High Density Residential within this Specific Provision Area shall contain a minimum non-residential building floor area of 3,000 square metres to achieve the planned function pursuant to 2) a. above, including a mix of commercial, community, employment, institutional, and/or academic uses (excluding residences), in accordance with the implementing zoning by-law.

122THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and By-law No. 2018-050 of the City of Waterloo is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, subject to the following modifications:

a) Exception C19 on Schedule ‘D’ of Attachment 2 is to be modified by adding the following new site-specific regulation to subsection a) under the heading “Site Specific Regulations”:

x. Cumulative BUILDING FLOOR AREA (minimum): 3,000 square metres for non-residential USES

b) Exception C19 on Schedule ‘D’ of Attachment 2 is to be modified by deleting the words “consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines prepared by MHBC, dated October, 2024” from subsection j) ii. a) under the subheading “Holding Symbol”, such that the revised holding provision reads as follows:

a) Verification to the satisfaction of the CITY that the development is consistent with a detailed master site plan as part of a Site Plan Application in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act. The master site plan shall address matters including, but not limited to, private streets, blocks, building placement, public spaces, landscaped open space, common amenity areas, active transportation connections, community uses, and infrastructure.

123The Tribunal authorises the municipal clerk of the City of Waterloo to assign a number to the by-law for record keeping purposes.

124The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event the Parties need assistance or clarification when implementing the above Orders.

“S. Dixon”

s. dixon

membeR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2