du territoire
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
ISSUE DATE: May 09, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000243
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 154775 Canada Inc.
Appellant: 3930149 Canada Inc.
Appellant: 11034936 Canada Inc. ("Brigil")
Appellant: Forum Asset Management
Appellant: Loblaw Companies Limited
Appellant: Sisters of Charity
Appellant: Zena Investment Corporation
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48
Description: To amend Official Plan for the City of Ottawa to add the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan
Reference Number: D01-01-22-0008
Municipality: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000243
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000243
OLT Case Name: 154775 Canada Inc., et al. v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: February 10, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
154775 Canada Inc. (“Guibord”)
Roberto Aburto Alice Mihailescu
City of Ottawa (“City”)
Garett Schromm
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON MAY 9, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Hearing on an appeal filed by Guibord pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) against the adoption by the City of Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (“OPA 3”).
2The Secondary Plan policies under consideration in this appeal specifically applies to, or otherwise impact, the lands owned by Guibord at 3403 St. Joseph Boulevard (“Subject Property”).
3Mr. Schromm provided an overview of the intent and purpose of OPA 3 explaining that OPA 3 amends the City Official Plan, 2022 (“OP”) with the addition of the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) to provide direction and guidance for development associated with the planned transit stations along the future Light-Rail Transit corridor and to achieve the goal of creating 15-minute neighbourhoods along the Orleans Corridor.
4For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal determines that the appeal is allowed, and the requested relief is granted.
5Appeals of OPA 3 by other appellants may remain. This decision is without prejudice to those remaining appeals.
6The Secondary Plan was first presented to the City’s Planning Committee on September 8, 2022, following the City Council approval of the OP, but prior to final ministerial approval of the OP on November 4, 2022.
7City Council on February 22, 2023 approved OPA 3, which applies to a broad geographical area in Orléans, which is the northeastern area of Ottawa’s urban area.
8The Subject Property is approximately 3,536.19 square metres in area with approximately 49.22 metres (“m”) of frontage on the north side of St. Joseph Boulevard. It consists of three original lots, two of which were acquired from the City in 2009. The lands are largely vacant and currently occupied by a former residential building that now accommodates an office and service business, permanent and temporary storage structures, and a circular driveway.
9South, beyond St. Joseph Boulevard, is a single-family residential area that sits atop an escarpment that is approximately 25 m higher than the average grade of the Subject Property.
10To the north, approximately 141 m and 175 m away, is Highway 174 and the planned Tenth Station respectively. The exact location of the Tenth Line Station has not been precisely established as of the date of this hearing.
11The lands surrounding the Subject Property are located between two interchanges providing access to and from Highway 174, which is located north of the Subject Property. The exit interchange on the west side of the property widens to 5 lanes.
12Tenth Line Road is a Major Arterial Road that provides entrances and exits (excluding eastbound) to and from Highway 174 and extends south approximately eight kilometers crossing multiple east/west arterial roads in the eastern end of Ottawa’s Urban area. A controlled intersection exists at the corner of Tenth Line Road and St. Joseph Boulevard, providing for pedestrian crossing.
Key Issues In Dispute
13The appeal before the Tribunal revolves around the following three key issues:
a) The Secondary Plan has established site specific policies for the Subject Property and others in close proximity to the Tenth Station that differ from other LRT station areas in the Secondary Plan area by limiting building heights to four storeys and to non-residential uses, on the basis of a lack of committed funding for the construction of the Tenth Station;
b) The Secondary Plan introduces the potential for increased height and density in varying degrees throughout the plan without assessing and addressing servicing constraints that are referenced within the Secondary Plan; and
c) The Secondary Plan proposes an overlay on the Subject Property that requires the preparation of a Demonstration Plan as a pre-requisite to redevelopment.
WITNESSES
14Guibord called Brian Casagrande, a Land Use Planner with thirty years of experience. Mr. Casagrande is a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute as well as the Canadian Institute of Planners.
15The City called Mr. Robin van de Lande, Planner III (Senior Urban Planner) and Ms. Deborah Lightman, Acting Program Manager Transportation Policy and Networks Branch, both employed by the City.
16Upon review and consideration of their education, experience, and expertise, the Tribunal qualified the above noted experts to provide opinion evidence in their respective fields.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
17The Province enacted a new Provincial Planning Statement which came into effect on October 20, 2024 (“PPS”), replacing the prior “Provincial Policy Statement, 2020”. The Parties agree that the 2024 PPS applies in this appeal.
18The Parties agreed that Schedule C should be amended to remove the Potential Park symbol from the Subject Property.
19Issues 5, 8, and 9 identified in the Procedural Order on the Issues List have been removed as they have been agreed to on consent.
20While the parties disagree whether the Subject Property should be redesignated Station Core area in such circumstance, or whether a new area-specific policy is required, in either case, the area-specific policy or the Station Core designation policies would state that a public park is desired in the general vicinity northeast of St. Joseph Boulevard and Tenth Line, subject to OP policies that establish the appropriate conditions when a park is commonly expected from a development parcel.
21In the event that the OLT determines that the requirement for a demonstration plan (either in the case where a station funding agreement for the future Tenth Line Station is in place, or where Council has determined that the future station will not be constructed, or both) in the area specific policies of the Secondary Plan pertaining to the Subject Property, should be removed, the Parties agreed that it would be appropriate to include an area-specific policy, applicable to the Subject Property.
22If the requirement for a demonstration plan is maintained, the Parties agreed that the appropriate location of any proposed park would be addressed through the demonstration plan (as required by s. 4.20 of the Secondary Plan).
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
23When considering an appeal filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 2.1(1) requires that the Tribunal have regard to any decision of Council on OPA 3, and the information and material that the Council considered in making its decision.
24Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that OPA 3, as modified, conforms with the Official Plan (2022).
25Section 17(50) of the Act which sets out the Tribunal’s powers on appeals:
Powers of Tribunal (50) On an appeal or a transfer under this section, the Tribunal may approve all or part of the plan as all or part of an official plan, make modifications to all or part of the plan and approve all or part of the plan as modified as an official plan or refuse to approve all or part of the plan. [Emphasis added.]
26In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that OPA 3, as modified, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
27Mr. Casagrande stated that matters of provincial interest have not been addressed as it relates to the Subject Property in OPA 3. He opined, among many matters of provincial interest that would be of importance to the Secondary Plan, the City has not recognized the following:
f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;
h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;
n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests.
28He explained that the City has not carefully analyzed or addressed the potential that exists on the Subject Property while scripting OPA 3 nor was alternative planning advice sought. Most notably, the Subject Property could accommodate the orderly development of higher densities, as the land is within walking distance from a transit oriented neighbourhood, along a planned LRT line and is serviced by municipal sewage and water services. He stated that OPA 3 does not address a resolution to planning conflicts involving public and private interests.
29Mr. van de Lande stated all submissions received from public consultation were taken into consideration when authoring the Secondary Plan. The City submits that locating housing to other areas that are better served by transit avoids creating a car-dependent community. Mr. van de Lande explained that the Demonstration Plan policies aim to ensure orderly development by matching development pace with available transportation infrastructure. The Secondary Plan allocates substantial density around funded stations within the OP’s time horizon, excluding Tenth Line Station at this time.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
30Under s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to have regard to matters of provincial interest. The planning evidence identifies that the PPS aims to provide policy direction on a broad range of matters relating to land use planning and appropriate development, support improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system.
31Mr. Casagrande opined OPA 3, as it relates to the future development of the Subject Property and is not consistent with the PPS as it does not have regard for matters of provincial interest. Mr. Casagrande brought the Tribunal through several of the 2024 PPS policies outlined in Issue 2 of the Issues List (Exhibit 1, pg. 56-57).
32Regarding s. 2.2 on Housing, he stated that OPA 3 does not offer a suitable range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the projected housing needs. He noted that the Subject Property is near transit-supportive corridors and a planned transit station.
33He believed the City did not conduct a detailed analysis for OPA 3 to explore opportunities for increased density and use of the Subject Property. He argued that the Secondary Plan's "gating policies," which prevent residential development until the Tenth Line Station's funding status is determined, are inconsistent with policy 2.2.1 of the PPS 2024.
34The Tribunal heard that if City Council removes Tenth Line Station from Schedule C2 of the OP, residential development would be allowed on the Subject Property. This is because the development fits the O-Train Minor Corridor designation, provided a Demonstration Plan for the entire block is submitted and transit and active transportation connections are established. Mr. Casagrande maintained that City’s only justification for this was premised on the apprehension that allowing even limited residential density prior to funding of the Tenth Station would inhibit development in the future should funding occur.
35Mr. Casagrande pointed to the City’s, argument that “gating policies” are necessary to ensure infrastructure-supported development. However, Mr. van de Lande admitted during cross-examination that residential development is allowed on the Subject Property in the Secondary Plan even without funding for Tenth Line Station, provided that a Demonstration Plan is submitted. It was Mr. Casagrande’s opinion that there is no solid planning rationale for keeping the OP permissions for the Subject Property in line with s. 2.1.1 as planning authorities have the opportunity to modify their OP based on need and growth. Having said that, he testified that under the current housing crisis there is a need for residential development.
36The Tribunal was taken to s. 2.2.3 that speaks to the definitions of both Settlement Areas and Strategic Growth Areas (s. 2.3.1) indicating the direction of the PPS is clear: the focus is for growth and development along major roads, arterials, or other areas with existing or “planned” transit service along higher order transit corridors. He stressed that by not having provided opportunities for additional density through intensification, OPA 3 fails to optimize infrastructure, make efficient use of the land, and fails to contribute to the long-term housing needs of the community and province (s. 2.3.1(2)).
37Mr. Casagrande discussed policies 2.3.1.3(6) and 2.3.1.6, which support intensification, housing, and complete communities by prioritizing planning and infrastructure investment, using phasing policies appropriately. He emphasized policy 2.3.1.6 does not require planning to be conditional on municipal budgeting for infrastructure. Instead, planning should guide growth so that municipal budgeting can phase infrastructure funding and construction to align with anticipated growth and existing key infrastructure.
38He opined that the PPS directs planning decisions to be based on "planned" transit services. Referring to s. 2.4.2.1 on Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), he noted that stations are identified in OPA 3 and emphasized that Secondary Plans must delineate the area around an MTSA, which the City has overlooked in the Secondary Plan.
S. 2.4.3 Frequent Transit Corridors:
- Planning authorities shall plan for intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing and planned frequent transit corridors, where appropriate.
39He testified that the PPS mandates planning authorities to plan for intensification on lands adjacent to existing and planned Frequent Transit Corridors. He also noted that the City has failed to consider the entrance and exit of Highway 174 and the arterial roads adjacent to the Subject Property.
Section 6.1 (12) – General Policies states:
- Density targets represent minimum standards and planning authorities are encouraged to go beyond these minimum targets, where appropriate, except where doing so would conflict with any policy of the Provincial Planning Statement or any other provincial plan.
40He emphasized that the Subject Property is suitable for higher density as the PPS encourages municipalities to go beyond minimum density targets with policies for intensification and redevelopment. He testified that OPA 3 overlooks existing infrastructure on the property’s north and south boundaries and the phasing for development and growth. Mr. Casagrande opined that the Secondary Plan is inconsistent with policy 2.4.1.3 because it neither intensifies nor permits residential uses on the Subject Property.
41Policy 6.1.12 encourages planning authorities to exceed minimum targets when appropriate. Mr. Casagrande noted that while the PPS directs municipalities to meet housing targets, the City has failed to do so due to insufficient consideration of higher densities, thus failing to address the housing crisis effectively within the traditional planning framework.
42Mr. van de Lande stated that municipalities must apply the PPS to support provincial planning objectives, ensuring Council decisions, like the Secondary Plan, do not contradict PPS policies. He clarified that "consistent with" means aligning with the PPS's intent and purpose, allowing municipalities like Ottawa discretion in applying PPS policies based on local context, as long as provincial interests are respected.
43Mr. van de Lande noted that Tenth Line Station is unfunded, and its location is yet to be determined. He explained that the Secondary Plan considered a balance of mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses near new transit stations, connecting neighbourhoods to stations with active transportation elements and providing guidance for redeveloping large development.
44Mr. van de Lande informed the Tribunal that the Subject Property is not within a Strategic Growth Area. He explained that municipalities have discretion in identifying areas for intensification and higher-density mixed uses, which must have existing or planned frequent transit service or a higher-order transit corridor, neither of which the Subject Property has. He argued that allocating transit-oriented densities to an inadequately planned station would not be an efficient use of resources.
45Mr. van de Lande’s evidence was that it would not be an efficient use of resources to allocate transit-oriented densities to a station which is not adequately “planned” within the meaning of the PPS.
46The Secondary Plan allocates significant growth to strategic growth areas, including a MTSA, and provides only conditional growth permission for the Tenth Line Station area, which is not consistent with PPS s. 2.3.1(1). Policy 2.3.1(2) requires land use patterns to efficiently use land and resources, optimize infrastructure and public service facilities, support active transportation, and be transit supportive. He stated the City’s “gating policies” ensure transit-oriented densities are provided once station funding is confirmed, preventing inefficient resource use and non-transit-supportive housing if the station is not built.
47PPS s. 2.9.1 mandates municipalities to plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change, inter alia, by supporting transit-oriented complete communities. Mr. van de Lande argued that prematurely allocating transit-oriented heights to the Subject Property would lead to a car-dependent population, contrary to this policy.
48The City stated that PPS s. 6.1 encourages but does not mandate intensification. The City noted that the Secondary Plan significantly increases density in areas with planned transit availability, but additional density on the Subject Property is not appropriate until station funding and location are confirmed with more certainty.
City of Ottawa Official Plan
Guibord’s OP Position
49Mr. Casagrande opined that the Secondary Plan’s approach to the Subject Property is inconsistent with the treatment of other similar properties in the area. The OP designates the Subject Property as Neighbourhood with an Evolving Neighbourhood Overlay near a Hub and Town Centre that includes the Tenth Line Station (Exhibit1, Tab P, pg. 254).
50The Secondary Plan brings Maximum Building Heights for the Subject Property, and surrounding lands:
Schedule B: Maximum Building Heights in the Secondary Plan provides maximum heights for the Subject Property are to be determined through a Demonstration Plan, as per section 4.20. Furthermore, land uses and building heights for the Subject Property are captured by “gating policies” found under the heading “3449, 3353, 3373, 3393, 3397, 3403, 3413, 3443 and 3453 St. Joseph Boulevard” (the “Gating Policies”), which provides for three outcomes for land uses depending on the funding status of the Tenth Station.
51Guibord requests the Subject Property and surrounding lands be designated “Station Core Area” in Schedule A of the Secondary Plan. Guibord also suggests policies of “Station Periphery” would be suitable providing that Schedule B is amended to allow the desired heights. Mr. Casagrande’s professional opinion, and evidence before the Tribunal, highlighted the importance of high-rise built form in maximizing density, and the missed opportunity to provide much needed residential units due to the current Secondary Plan policies.
52The Tenth Line Station is part of the existing east-west Confederation Line LRT, as identified on Schedule C2 of the OP, which remains unchanged by OPA 3. Mr. Casagrande opined that although the Subject Property is adjacent to a hub and town centre, it is also within 400 metres of the planned Tenth Line Station. Therefore, the Secondary Plan should have considered creating a 400 m and 800 m radius around the station for high- and mid-rise residential development.
53The Secondary Plan currently provides for no residential uses on the Subject Property, and a limit of building heights to four-storeys, despite its proximity to existing transit, the planned Tenth Line Station, and a Transit Priority Corridor (“TPC”).
54The Tribunal heard that there are no plans to remove Tenth Line Station from the City's 2031 Network Concept or Schedule C2. Schedule C2 mandates that the City pursue funding for all stations listed, which remains unchanged by the Secondary Plan.
55He referred to s. 3.1 of the OP, which designates sufficient land for urban growth and development. The OP aims to provide diverse housing opportunities, directing higher densities closer to main streets, minor corridors, rapid transit stations, hubs, and major neighborhood amenities. Sections 3.2(10) and 3.2(16) emphasize improving rapid transit with population growth, advocating for density to surround density.
56He emphasized the Secondary Plan does not offer guidance in the form of Site Specific Policies for properties adjacent to the Tenth Line Station nor does it state specific density goals for residential development in the area.
57He noted that the area is likely to change with the inclusion of Tenth Line Station. He believes OPA 3, which aims to create 15-minute neighborhoods and supports building height and density near LRT stations, should include the Subject Property. However, Tenth Line Station is currently in a holding pattern, contingent on Council's decision. Property owners in the vicinity will bear the costs of providing a Demonstration Plan to realize additional uses and densities until the station is funded.
58Turning to s. 4.1.2 (17) he noted the Subject Property is along a transit corridor that is existing or planned.
- The street network in new plans of subdivision shall be capable of accommodating direct transit routes through the neighbourhood, with the potential for transit routes to be spaced such that 95 per cent of all households are within a 400-metre walking distance of a transit stop, in accordance with OC Transport service policy.
59Based on his research, local bus routes run along St. Joseph Boulevard in front of the Subject Property. Schedule C4 in the OP shows higher order routes, with St. Joseph Boulevard extending to the east end and west. East of the Subject Property leads to downtown Ottawa, and Highway 174 is approximately 141 m to the north.
60Mr. Casagrande opined that a Secondary Plan should exceed minimum density targets around a MTSA, which OPA 3 has overlooked. He noted that the Subject Property is on an arterial road and within 500-800 m of two planned transit corridors, the TPC, and Tenth Line Station. Since Tenth Line Station is part of a protected MTSA, he believes the Subject Property should be the focus of growth, yet the Secondary Plan is inconsistent with the PPS policy in this regard.
61Schedule C4 identifies the City's higher order routes. The Subject Property is on an arterial roadway, which is highly significant for transportation. Schedule C4 includes a conceptual design for Tenth Line Station, located just north of the Subject Property, with plans for a future pedestrian crossing and multi-use pathway.
62He testified that GeoOttawa shows a sanitary line along the rear property line (north side), and water and stormwater lines along the property line (south side) abutting St. Joseph Boulevard. He emphasized that the City did not conduct a detailed analysis of servicing capacity in the planning area for OPA 3.
63Section 6.3.11 defines hubs as areas within 600-800 m of a planned transit station or stop. He stated that consequently, development height and density around Tenth Line Station have been limited compared to other Hubs in the Secondary Plan. Mr. Casagrande believes the Subject Property and surrounding lands meet the criteria to be considered a Hub in the Official Plan based on the TPC alone, even if Tenth Line Station is ignored. In his opinion the City's decision to not consider a Hub designation for the Subject Property and surrounding lands in the Secondary Plan development process reflects a broader approach of maintaining the status quo.
64He stated that if funding for Tenth Line Station was a concern during the creation of the Secondary Plan, it should have been reflected in the policies or indicated on the legend of Schedule B. However, the OP does not address this.
65The Tribunal was taken to Schedule C1 of the OP (below) that shows the future Tenth Line Station is adjacent to a Protected Major Transit Area.
66Mr. Casagrande noted that Tenth Line Station is not on Map 5 of the 2013 Transit Master Plan (“TMP”), which outlines the City's 2031 Affordable Network. He agreed that the station is unlikely to be delivered in the next six years, but pointed out that the City did not consider section 12.7 of the Official Plan.
- Secondary plans and area-specific policies shall take into consideration, and generally be consistent with, the policies of this Plan, although they may establish specific policies, such as different building heights or development densities in support of the Plan. The following are matters that may only be considered as part of a comprehensive review of the Official Plan, changing the boundary of a transect area or removing an Overlay, other than the Future Neighbourhood Overlay.
67Mr. Casagrande testified that the Tenth Line Station was included in the 2016 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Confederation Line East Extension (Blair Station to Trim Road). The EA considered the station's relocation easterly to align with the Subject Property.
68In his opinion, the City’s approach to the Subject Property is rooted solely in putting short term municipal funding before planning, despite its obligation to conduct policy-led decision making. As an example, the City prioritized short-term municipal funding over planning, relying heavily on the TMP and Map 5, which shows the 2031 Affordable Network. He argued that the City’s strict adherence to the TMP is undue and unfounded, as the TMP is not a policy or regulation.
69Mr. Casagrande acknowledged that the City could have amended Schedule C2 to remove Tenth Line Station through an OPA. However, he concluded that the parent OP policies limited Council’s ability to do the same through a secondary plan amendment. He argued that Secondary Plans that go beyond refining existing policy directions are inherently inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of the OP. The parent OP specifically contemplate that Secondary Plan policy may contradict a more general policy in the parent plan and provides that, in such a case, the Secondary Plan policy should prevail.
70In his opinion even if the transit priority corridor was the sole policy direction, excluding the Tenth Line Station and its funding, the current basis justifies increased density through setbacks for built form. This is supported by key sections of the OP and through the High Rise Guidelines. He opined that OPs are not intended to be used to prohibit or regulate specific land uses in detail but are to guide and inform zoning by-laws relative to appropriate height, density, and land use. In his opinion the Subject Property would easily satisfy policies 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 as the public realm and low-rise residential are south of the Subject Lands along St. Joseph Boulevard and beyond the escarpment. He stated that building heights can be rationalized for up to 40 storeys on the Subject Lands while respecting transition policies of the OP and High Rise Guidelines heading south and away from the Tenth Line Station. This would be consistent with other the heights surrounding other stations in the Secondary Plan and the polices in the OP, heights of 40 storeys should be contemplated for the Subject Lands and those properties closer to Tenth Station.
71Mr. Casagrande concluded by recommending amendments to the policies for the Subject Property and surrounding areas. He suggested removing the site-specific Parkland symbol, demonstration plan, and land assembly policies. He requested a Station Core designation with a 40-metre height limit for the Subject Property to enable appropriate redevelopment and intensification, aligning with the PPS, the new OP, and the Secondary Plan's goals.
City’s OP Position
72The Tribunal heard the goals for the Secondary Plan were established through a 2020 Project Charter, which aimed to fulfill the council direction to position Orleans for transit-oriented growth and community revitalization with the introduction of 4 new O-Train stations.
73The City stated that during the preparation of the Secondary Plan policy planners worked to establish a policy regime for the area reflective of the new broad strategic directions of the OP applied at a community level and centred on the new LRT stations. In Mr. van de Lande’s opinion, policies for the Station Area within OPA 3 are consistent with the objectives and general intent of the OP. Before bringing forward the Secondary Plan the team consulted on the vision, goals and objectives of the Secondary Plan with a broad public audience and received positive reaction.
74The Secondary Plan aims to create 15-minute neighbourhoods around new stations where residents can access daily services, recreational amenities and employment opportunities within a short walk or bike ride. It integrates St. Joseph Boulevard with transit-oriented developments, enhancing the walkable corridor from Forest Valley Drive to Orleans Town Centre which will serve as the community’s spine and anchor future growth.
75Section 2.1, “Big Moves” outlines the broad, long-term strategic directions for the City's growth and sustainability. They emphasize the vision for transit-oriented development near transit corridors. The gating policies ensure that future development density and height near the Tenth Line Station is tied to the availability of transit. The policies restrict higher-density development unless the station is funded, promoting sustainable growth and preventing car-dependent sprawl, which is consistent with the city’s long-term vision of compact, transit-oriented neighbourhoods.
76The City policy planning team used the term “gating” to describe an OP policy with two potential outcomes based on conditions like funding or infrastructure upgrades. These policies ensure that greater impact development remains possible if funding or private investment arises, while also allowing for interim development with existing land use permissions, such as lower density uses.
77He stated that there was a focus to foster a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses within proximity to new transit stations, connecting neighbourhoods to stations with active transportation and guiding the redevelopment of large blocks like Place d’Orleans mall and Trim Station.
78Mr. van de Lande clarified how the city interpreted its responsibility with the PPS and what outcomes the Station Area ‘gating’ policies are intended to permit. He explained that the gating policies provide for density in the future while ensuring that development does not proceed prematurely which may avoid an inefficient allocation of growth even if funding for the Tenth Line Station is available.
79A great deal of the City’s evidence was in relation to “gating policies” that focus on controlling the timing and density of development near the proposed Tenth Line Station. These policies allow higher-density development only if the necessary transit infrastructure is funded or built. These policies also provide flexibility for lower-density development if the Station is not realized ensuring manageable growth. Allocating density now, in his opinion, before the Station funding is confirmed, could lead to an inefficient use of resources, and create housing that is not transit-supportive if the station is never built (or built several decades later), this would be contrary to the policy. From the perspective of the City gating policies are not only necessary, but essential for ensuring that development can be coordinated, sustainable, and infrastructure supported as required by the OP and PPS.
80The Tribunal heard that the decision not to apply Hub designation policies to the Subject Lands is appropriate given that the station is not sufficiently planned and given that it is not within the specified proximity of a major frequent transit stop. This is consistent with the earlier decision of Council not to designate it as Hub on the parent OP Schedule B8. The gating policies ensure that higher densities can be achieved once the construction of the station is more certain, and the coordination and functionality of development within the area will be achieved through a demonstration plan.
81By allowing for the option of transit oriented development if the station is confirmed, the policies support key sections of the OP, particularly those policies related to building height, density, and infrastructure around rapid transit stations. He stated that a municipality must secure funding in order to ensure the “provision” of the infrastructure, and the policy is explicitly concerned about coordinating the timing of development with the provision of infrastructure.
82The City argued that "planned" transit requires both planning and funding. He stated that Tenth Line Station does not qualify as a major transit station because it "does not exist" and needs secured financing. While both land use planners agree that growth should be near MTSA, they differ on whether the area qualifies as an MTSA based on their interpretation of "planned”.
83He informed the Tribunal that in the Secondary Plan, the Subject Property has not been designated in a Station Area and instead have an area specific policy:
In the absence of a funded Tenth Line O-Train station, land uses will be limited to non-residential land uses including but not necessarily limited to, industrial and logistics, warehousing, commercial, office, hotel and recreation.
If an O-Train station funding agreement is in place to the satisfaction of the City, these lands may, based on an approved Demonstration plan, be used for residential, office and other commercial uses with higher densities, and a taller built form, consistent with the policies for Station Core and Station Periphery designations.
If Council determines that the future Tenth line O-train station will not be constructed and deletes the station from the Official Plan and other master plans; the lands may be developed consistent with the O-Train Minor Corridor designation conditional on the provision of a Demonstration Plan for the entire block and establishment of transit and active transportation connections to Place d’Orléans or Trim stations.
84He referred to s. 4.1.2.22 of the OP, which mandates the City to protect corridors and expand the transit network as detailed in Schedule C2. Schedule C2 shows the network for which the City will seek funding, consistent with the TMP. The City argued that Schedule C2 should not be seen as a long-term planning document but rather as a commitment to protect future infrastructure corridors. Depicting the station on Schedule C2 does not make it "planned" for PPS policies requiring housing density near transit.
85Mr. van de Lande argued that the Subject Lands are not in a Strategic Growth Area because Tenth Line Station is not funded, overlooking its inclusion in Schedule C2. He stated that the lands are not within 600 m of an LRT station, so additional residential land uses are not permitted until Tenth Line Station is approved and funded by the Council.
Ms. Lightman opined that while the aforesaid states that Schedule C2 identifies stations for which funding will be pursued, it does not state that all stations shown must be funded or on what timeline they shall be funded.
86Ms. Lightman noted that the TPC, which includes signal improvements and bus queue jump lanes, has not yet been constructed. Due to budget shortfalls and OC Transport route changes, it may never be built. Ms. Lightman agreed that the TMP is a supporting document of the OP, outlining transportation infrastructure and policies to meet needs up to the 2031 planning horizon.
87She stated that while the TMP offers a general guide to Ottawa’s growth and development, implementing O P policies depends on more specific tools, including other City plans like the TMP. Section 4.1 of the TMP states that:
“Through this Plan and the TMP and associated Plans, the City shall manage and improve the transportation network to support healthy, complete neighbourhoods and expand the extent of the city where it is possible to live a car-light and car-free lifestyle.”
88TMP policies support the broader goals of the OP by promoting sustainable, compact urban growth, and reducing car dependency in Ottawa's suburban areas. The Tribunal heard that the TMP is being updated, and part I policies in the new TMP have been approved by Council, extending the planning horizon to 2046.
89Ms. Lightman confirmed that the rail for the Confederation Line near Tenth Line Station and Highway 174 has been built. She stated that the 2016 Environmental Assessment study is no longer valid, as a central platform station is not feasible. Any new station proposal for Tenth Line Station would need platforms on either side of the rail line and likely reconfiguration of the Highway 174 interchange.
90Mr. van de Lande noted that properties adjacent to the Subject Property are within two highway interchanges and lack City-standard pedestrian sidewalks. An environmentally sensitive area lies to the north, between the property and the highway. Stormwater management for these properties needs to be studied.
91The City concluded that the Station Area policies in the proposed OPA 3 are not overly prescriptive. They reflect the City’s authority to manage growth, ensure sustainable land use and coordinate development with infrastructure, consistent with other city secondary plans.
City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2008-250
92The City Comprehensive Zoning By-law No.2008-250 is the City-wide Zoning By-law applicable to all lands in the municipality.
93The Subject Property is currently zoned General Mixed-Use, Subzone 13, Urban Exception 434, Height Limit 20 m (GM[434] H(20)) in the City’s Zoning By-law. The existing as-of-right uses provide for an assortment of commercial industrial uses including a gas bar, automotive service station, and automotive rental establishment.
94The Zoning By-law is currently in the process of being updated to align with the OP.
Demonstration Plan
95Mr. Casagrande expressed concern that even if the Tenth Line Station is funded, the Secondary Plan imposes significant obligations on Guibord and eight other landowners due to Demonstration Plan requirements. These requirements apply to any redevelopment of the Subject Property and surrounding lands, regardless of size or development type.
96He stated this is disproportionate and not aligned with good planning. The Subject Property is one of only three areas in the Secondary Plan where maximum heights are determined through a Demonstration Plan, unlike other residential areas. The Demonstration Plan assumes joint development of multiple parcels, which may not be feasible. He argued that such requirements are only reasonable for single ownership lands large enough for multiple buildings and public spaces. Mr. Casagrande testified a Demonstration Plan is only reasonable for single ownership lands that can accommodate multiple buildings, typically mid- or high-rise, with a street network and public spaces.
97Mr. van de Lande’s evidence was that the area shown as “Height through Demonstration Plan” on Schedule B is simply not ready for residential development without further study and coordination between the landowners. He pointed to poor pedestrian connectivity to Tenth Line Station (due to the two highway interchanges on either side of the area), inadequate bus or light rail connectivity, and geotechnical concerns. All of these issues would be addressed, along with adequate provision of parkland or cash-in-lieu, through a Demonstration Plan. Mr. van de Lande explained that the Demonstration Plan policies aim to ensure orderly development by matching development pace with available transportation infrastructure. The Secondary Plan allocates substantial density around funded stations within the OP's time horizon, excluding Tenth Line Station.
PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS
98The Tribunal received 21 Participant Statements on this matter, all of which were identical in wording. The Tribunal weighed all Participant Statements accordingly in the findings and is satisfied that from a land use planning perspective these concerns have been adequately addressed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
99This Appeal involves balancing the private right to develop with the City's interest in securing infrastructure funding first and foremost for the Tenth Line Station before considering a change in zoning to the Subject Property to allow for residential development.
100The Tribunal finds that the assessment of this Appeal should not be approached as an exercise to prevent development, but rather to balance development of the site with the provincial and local planning framework. Both Parties agreed to interpret and evaluate the issues at hand to further the overall policy objectives and to achieve the broader goals and intentions behind the policies in question. This ensures that the interpretation and application are aligned with its intended purpose and context, promoting fairness and effectiveness of the new 2022 OP.
101In this matter, Tribunal needed to consider the general intent and objectives of the OP as a whole when considering the consistency of the Secondary Plan policies. Ideally, the owner of the land should not be left with vacant land that has restrictive zoning they cannot use, and for which they have not received any compensation from the City. However, such lands should be developed in a way that respects the applicable provincial and municipal policies, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
102The Tribunal recognizes that OPs are not only critical instruments in guiding the actions of the municipality in terms of its by-laws but are also relied upon by public investment and land use decisions. OPA 3, is a City-initiated amendment that essentially represents an undertaking by the City along with the community, that future of the Orleans Corridor will develop with a vision to improve access to amenities, eliminate vehicular traffic in lieu of public transportation, and provide for various options for much needed housing.
103In this matter, 2022 OP is structured on the expectation that the Tenth Line Station (included in the OP Schedules) will be funded. Whether or not this may happen in the near or distant future, it is the responsibility of the Tribunal not to be focused on funding but to ensure planning is premised on policy-led decisions.
104The Tribunal accepts the factual outlines and key summary opinions and conclusions of Mr. Casagrande as set out in his witness statements and during his testimony.
105It is apparent to the Tribunal that Tenth Line Station was treated differently than other LRT stations in OPA 3 because of a lack of construction funding. The Tribunal recognizes that the PPS and OP place emphasis on building heights and density near existing and planned rapid transit stations and was made aware that according to Schedule A in the new OP, the station at Tenth Line Station, is along the same corridor as Jeanne D’Arc Station but has been excluded from appropriate intensification policies. Mr. Casagrande provided fulsome evidence speaking to the policy context and applicable planning policies that residential development is to be planned and located proximate to transit. The Tribunal agrees with his evidence.
106The Tribunal finds that OPA 3 has restricted the Subject Property to non-residential uses, and in doing so has failed to recognize the planning policy direction for growth and most particularly the immediate need for housing. The Tribunal does not agree with the City’s zoning approach of "wait and see" for future funding of the Tenth Line Station to support growth as it contradicts the Act by not acknowledging the existing municipal services on the property, the resolve of private and public conflicts, and the already in place transit on an arterial road.
107The Tribunal finds there is a balance to be kept on the policy front between the policy objectives and the need to respond to the provision of housing in the City as evidenced in the lack of the City to meet its targets. The paramountcy of this direction is not meant to signify that the other policies of the Provincial planning documents, such as the need to create complete communities have not been taken into account in this appeal hearing. In fact, the Tribunal recognizes that the City, through the site plan process, has the tools necessary to ensure the appropriate development of the lands. The Tribunal, based upon the facts, has determined that by approving OPA 3 as proposed to be modified will fully and fairly implement these policies while not undermining or ignoring the other policies of the PPS and the OP.
108The PPS puts the onus on the municipality to bring its OP into conformity with the PPS and update its zoning and development permit by-laws to implement the PPS. Ultimately, the Tribunal recognizes that the City is to uphold their OP policies and maintain orderly, responsible growth aligned with provincial and municipal standards, but in order to manage this, the City must be open to apply zoning that will move forward the objectives of meeting the needs of today while planning for tomorrow.
109The Tribunal does not agree with the City’s remarks on the prematurity of assigning transit-oriented heights to the Subject Property and disagrees that this would create an isolated, car-dependent community contrary to “15-minute” communities that are transit-oriented. It was demonstrated to the Tribunal that transit is readily available within 30 m of the Subject Property on an arterial road.
110The Tribunal was informed that south of the Subject Property, beyond St. Joseph Boulevard, is a single-family residential area that sits atop an escarpment that is approximately 25 m higher than the average grade of the Subject Property, which is furnished with an abundance of community services, schools, and facilities. This, the Tribunal finds, allows that a residential zoning on the Subject Property will be well served with amenities that are in close proximity.
111The Tribunal finds that requiring developers to finance servicing works or broad transit connections exceeds the goals of an OP. The City's Demonstration Plan requirements, linking contributions to servicing works with residential development, are beyond the scope of the PA. The Tribunal agrees that detailed Servicing Study requirements are ultra vires and do not fit within the OP’s scope. The Tribunal therefore agrees that the requirements for a Demonstration Plan for the Subject Property in the land assembly policies should be removed.
112The Tribunal recognizes a public park is desired in the general vicinity northeast of St. Joseph Boulevard and Tenth Line Station, subject to the OP policies that establish the appropriate conditions when a park is commonly expected from a development parcel.
113Based on the evidence, findings, and reasons summarized, and after due consideration for all of the arguments set forth in the opening and written closing submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal finds that the policies proposed for the Subject Property be amended to remove the site specific Parkland symbol; remove the requirements for a Demonstration Plan on the Subject Property in the land assembly policies and apply a 40-storey height limit in accordance with the policies .
114The Tribunal relies on the expert evidence provided at this hearing and the submissions of the parties and finds that OPA 3, as amended and as it pertains to the Subject Property, results in a planning instrument that is consistent with the PPS and the City’s OP, and considered matters of Provincial interest.
115Based upon the evidentiary record, with particular reliance upon the opinion evidence of Mr. Casagrande, the Tribunal finds that OPA 3, as amended meets the objectives of s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the general objectives of the OP. Further, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to include an area-specific policy, applicable only to the Subject Property.
ORDER
116THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part and OPA 3 is hereby modified as follows:
i. The Station Area be expanded to include 3403 St. Joseph Boulevard (“Subject Property”), to allow 40-storey heights;
ii. As part of the Station Area designation, the Subject Property’s permitted uses will include mixed use residential;
iii. The requirement for a Demonstration Plan be removed from the Subject Property;
iv. In the area specific policies of the Secondary Plan, the requirement for a Demonstration Plan pertaining to the Subject Property, be removed;
v. Schedule C of the Secondary Plan be amended to remove the Potential Parkland symbol from the Subject Property;
vi. In the area-specific policies a public park in the general vicinity northeast of St. Joseph Boulevard and Tenth Line Station, be included, subject to Official Plan policies that establish the appropriate conditions when a park is commonly expected from a development parcel;
117THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT OPA 3 as amended is without prejudice to the positions that may be taken by the remaining appellants to those appeals so that if those appeals proceed to a hearing, either on their own or as may be consolidated with other appeals, may be heard without prejudice.
D. Chipman
D. CHIPMAN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.