Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 15, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000686
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Cheryl Batten Appellant: Krumac Holdings Inc. Appellant: Pegasus Development Corporation c/o Andreas Foustanellas Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Appealing town-wide Official Plan Amendment No. 8 Reference Number: 0928-OP-23006 Property Address: Town-wide, 28 High Street Municipality/UT: Carleton Place/Lanark OLT Case No: OLT-24-000686 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000686 OLT Case Name: Cheryl Batten et al v. Lanark (County)
Heard:
June 26, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Cheryl Batten
Self-represented*
Town of Carleton Place
Emma Blanchard
County of Lanark
Gregory Meeds
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON JUNE 26, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
Background
1This is the remaining appeal of Cheryl Batten (“Appellant”) brought pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for an Official Plan Amendment -02-2021 (“OPA 8”) in the Town of Carleton Place (“Town”) regarding Appeal No. 010538 (“the Appeal”). Appeal No. 010537 (“the Pegasus Appeal”) was resolved through a motion by the Town, and Appeal No. 010539 (“the Krumac Appeal”) was withdrawn through a settlement with the Town.
2OPA 8 introduces several changes to the Official Plan particularly affecting development densities and policies across various districts within the Town including significant modifications to the Mississippi District.
3The Appellant appeals the adoption of the Town’s Official Plan (“TOP”) relating to the density requirements in several districts throughout the Town. Her appeal mainly focused on the Mississippi District Residential Sector (“MRS”) policies where she owned properties. The MRS is a sector in the Mississippi District (made up of the MRS, the Transitional Sector (“TS”), the Downtown District (“DD”), and the Mississippi Strategic Properties (“SP”)). Hearing
4The County did not call any witness and relied on the Town’s evidence and took the Town’s position.
5Nicole Dwyer, the Town’s planner was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.
6The self-represented Appellant being a lay person was given general guidance as to the different roles of an advocate and a witness. Ms. Batten opted to be witness in her matter which permitted her to present affirmed testimony, factual evidence and to make final submissions.
7Parties referred to the Documents Book (marked as Exhibit 1) and the Consolidated Witness Statements (marked as Exhibit 2) during witness testimonies. Both documents were prepared by the Town’s Counsel which assisted in the flow of the proceedings.
The Appellant’s position
8The Appellant contends that certain amended policies contained in OPA 8 as they apply to the MRS, “are …attempting to limit or eliminate intensification” and are therefore inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS).
9In her witness statement, the Appellant lists the following amended policies: The introductory paragraph to amended Section 3.1.2 in OPA 8, which applies to the whole of the Mississippi District explains that:
The Mississippi District is composed of the Town’s core commercial area and adjacent pre-war residential neighbourhood which developed with a focus on the Mississippi River. The District is associated with a number of municipal parks and greenspaces, institutional uses, recreational facilities and local commercial uses.
It includes the subdistricts of the Downtown District, Transitional Sector, the Mississippi District Residential Sector and Mississippi Strategic Properties.
10The Appellant objects to the use of the words “pre-war” to describe the older established neighbourhood comprising the MRS which is adjacent to the Town’s historic centre and core commercial areas. (Note: This “prewar” descriptor is applied to neighbourhoods established prior to 1930 and appropriately describes neighbourhoods within the MRS, which includes the oldest established residential neighbourhoods in the Town).
11The Appellant referred to s. 3.1.4.1 (5) relating to building heights in the DD sector. (This policy in the DD is outside the scope of the Appeal).
12Ms. Batten refers to s. 3.1.4.3 (1) generally restricting permitted residential uses in the MRS to:
Low Density Residential uses (Single Detached, Semi-Detached and Duplex Dwellings)(all density types); and, Secondary Accessory Residential Units (in primary and secondary buildings/structures);
13The Appellant cites the absence of apartment buildings as a permitted use in the MRS as a failure to provide for a mix of housing types that the PPS directs. She contends that any limitation of intensification is contrary to the PPS.
14The Appellant objects to OPA 8 with respect to “conflicting statements” stated in policies 3.1.2, 3.1.4.1 (2) (b) and 3.5.3 (11) (a), (b) and (c). She takes issues with s. 3.2.2.1 and s. 3.5.4.1(2) as well.
Section 3.1.2 relates to permitted uses in the Mississippi District allowing low, medium and high density residential, high density residential in buildings with street level commercial uses, additional residential units etc.
Section 3.1.4.1(2)(b) speaks to the development of medium to high density residential projects that may be permitted provided street level floors are restricted to pedestrian oriented commercial and service uses.
Section 3.5.3(11)(a),(b) and (c) refer to all developments and redevelopments not proposed through a plan of subdivision, within the Residential District shall develop at an average density target of 22 units per gross hectare unless otherwise specified in the Specific Area Policies.
Section 3.2.2.1 speaks of the average density target for infill development in the Mississippi Residential Sector will be 16 units per gross hectare, up to 22 units per gross hectare calculated on a site by site basis.
Section 3.5.4.1(2) states the intent of infill policies is to preserve the character of existing neighbourhoods and limit intensification and infill to those which conform to the prevailing character of the neighbourhood with respect to density, lot size and shape massing form and landscaped open space.
15The Appellant also refers to section 3.1.4.1.5 in her witness statement. (This provision does not appear in OPA 8, as adopted and approved).
16The Appellant submitted that the PPS requires housing density and affordability to be achieved. She argued that if there are no apartments permitted in this area which is in proximity to Downtown, then there is no consistency with the PPS policies. Ms. Batten emphasized that the area where her properties are, should allow mixed types of housing and intensification. Limiting density in the MRS does not accord with the PPS.
17She asserted that the area where her properties are located has aging infrastructure. It is also an area adjacent to where shops and commerce are. Thus, it is contrary to limit the density and intensification in this area (the MRS).
The Town’s position
18The Town states that multiple low-density housing types are permitted in the MRS including single detached homes, semi-detached and duplex dwellings as well as accessory residential units. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide for all types of housing in all areas of the Town. The PPS expressly directs planning authorities to support achievement of complete communities which includes supporting a diversity of neighbourhoods within a settlement area.
19Section 3.2.2.1 establishes an “average density target for infill development in the Mississippi Residential Sector District [of] 16 units per net hectare, up to 22 units per net hectare, calculated on a site-by-site basis.” These density targets were identified because of a neighbourhood density analysis completed in the Land Needs Background Study (by J.L. Richards & Associates Ltd.) and are consistent with the preferred growth scenario selected by Council. The Appellant is correct in noting that these density targets apply to low density uses as set out in Section 3.5.1 (11) (General Policies). The Town states that these targets are reasonable and appropriate based on local conditions as contemplated in Section 2.3.1 (4) of the PPS.
20Section 3.5.4.1 (2) (Infill Policies) states that:
The intent of infill policies is to preserve the character of existing neighbourhoods and limit intensification and infill to those which conform to the prevailing character of the neighbourhood with respect to density, lot size and shape, massing, form and landscaped open space.
21Responsible infill development requires consideration of the existing context in which new development is being introduced. This is particularly true in the case of infill development occurring within older established neighbourhoods such as those within the MRS.
22Objections to OPA 8 raised by the Appellant with respect to “conflicting statements” in policies 3.1.2, 3.1.4.1 (2) (b) and 3.5.3 (11) (a), (b) and (c), amount to failure to appreciate that the Mississippi District incorporates four distinct sectors (DD, TS, the MRS and SP) which have distinct policy directions with respect to growth and intensification, with densities ranging from low density (in the MRS) to high density housing typologies (in the DD and SP).
23Ms. Blanchard, Counsel for the Town submitted that OPA 8 is a response to the dramatic growth pressure on the Town. It represents a focused effort to direct growth to target areas identified e.g. the strategic properties and the downtown district.
24The OPA 8 established parameters to reflect local conditions and preserve desired characteristics for all residents including new residents. There are different target areas with high and medium density in areas identified for growth. The MRS is not a target area for intensification. The contested MRS policies reflect the local condition and is consistent with the PPS. Within the MRS, there is a range of lower density typology permitted.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
25The Tribunal finds that the Appeal ought to be dismissed for the following reasons.
26Ms. Dwyer’s uncontroverted opinion evidence was persuasive. Her testimony was not challenged. The Appellant did not proffer any planning evidence in support of her appeal.
27The Tribunal finds that the requirement in section 2 of the Planning Act (the Act) requiring land use planning approval authorities to have regard to matters of provincial interest, has been met.
28The Tribunal agrees with the only expert opinion evidence of Ms. Dwyer in the findings that follow.
29In particular, s. 2(h)): The MRS policies contribute to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities by providing for gentle intensification in an established residential neighbourhood and establish the conditions for the preservation of a walkable and complete community which complements and supports adjacent areas as target areas for growth where more significant intensification is encouraged.
30S. 2(j)): The MRS policies permit a range of low-density housing typologies within an established residential neighbourhood as well as means of introducing more affordable forms of housing, including through the development of Accessory Residential Units. These policies permit a range of housing and affordable housing which complements the broader range of housing typologies permitted in adjacent areas and throughout the Town. OPA 8 supports the provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing.
31S. 2(p)): A central objective of OPA 8 was to provide additional direction as to the appropriate locations for growth and development in the Town, including by introducing new policies permitting substantial residential growth within the Highway District and by introducing high and medium-density targets in target areas for growth such as the Mississippi SP, the DD and the TS. OPA 8 is underpinned by the Land Needs Background Study and preferred growth scenario approved by Town Council.
32S. 2(r)(i)): the MRS Policies have regard to the promotion of built form that is well-designed by establishing a clear distinction between the two components of the Mississippi District: 1) the Town’s core commercial area; and 2) the adjacent pre-war residential neighbourhood, referred to as the “Mississippi Residential Sector”. This distinction acknowledges the unique character, history, and development patterns of each area.
The Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”)
33The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Dwyer and finds that the MRS policies in OPA 8 are consistent with the relevant sections of the PPS, which are sections 2.2 (Housing), 2.3.1 (General Policies for Settlement Areas), and 2.4.1 (General Policies for Strategic Growth Areas).
The MRS Policies Provide for an Appropriate Range and Mix of Housing Options and Densities.
34Policy 2.2 of the PPS provides broad direction to planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities, regarding the projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area.
35OPA 8 and the TOP supports the development of a broad range of “housing options” including single-detached, semi-detached, duplexes, additional residential units, and multi-residential buildings, including low- and mid-rise apartments. The range of housing options permitted in the MRS, while not reflecting the full breadth of options permitted in other areas of the Town, nevertheless, still permits an appropriate range of options, including housing typologies which are typically more affordable such as secondary accessory residential units, semi-detached and duplexes.
The MRS Policies support the development of Complete Communities
36Policy 2.3.1.3 of the PPS encourages planning authorities to support the intensification and redevelopment to achieve “complete communities.” Within the larger Mississippi District, the intent of OPA 8 is to recognize a mixed-use development area where a variety of residential densities are integrated with commercial and institutional uses in a pedestrian-oriented landscape.
37Medium and high-density residential uses are recognized as important opportunities to create focal points and nodes within the “Downtown and Transitional Sectors” where they can demonstrate compatibility with the existing landscape through appropriate massing, balance, height, siting, parking and servicing. These uses are balanced and supported by adjacent lower density built forms in the MRS which offer opportunities to a different household demographic.
38Policy 2.3.1.4 of the PPS provides that “[p]lanning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built- up areas, based on local conditions.” To understand such local conditions, the Town commissioned the Land Needs Background Study to analyze and map existing condition of densities, built forms and areas for potential intensification and infill to contextualize the extent of change which Council may choose to recognize in updated policies.
39Town Council considered three potential growth scenarios and through a community consultation process selected a growth proposal which provides for an adequate housing supply to meet the projected population demands while ensuring that growth and development is respectful of the Town’s built heritage and small-town character in conformity with the guiding principles of the TOP.
OPA 8 Properly Establishes “Strategic Growth Areas”
40Section 2.4.1 of PPS encourages planning authorities to identify and focus growth and development in strategic growth areas. The PPS defines “strategic growth areas” as areas identified by municipalities to be the focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form. Strategic growth areas identified in Policy 3.1.3 in OPA 8 include:
the Mississippi Downtown District;
the Mississippi Transitional Sector; and,
Strategic Properties.
41In s. 2.4.1.2, the identification of strategic growth areas supports the achievement of complete communities specifically because it permits a mix of levels of intensification in a settlement area.
42The MRS was deliberately not identified as a strategic growth area. Instead, the policies applicable to that area, including the contested MRS Policies support gentle intensification which is compatible with the established residential neighbourhoods in this area.
The Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan (“COP”)
43The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Dwyer and finds that the MRS Policies conform with the relevant policies of the COP, specifically Section 2.3 (Settlement Area Policies), 2.6 (Settlement Area Land Use Policies), and 8.2.5 (Development Permit By-law).
44Policy 2.3.1 of the COP directs the TOP to ensure that there is sufficient land area to accommodate a broad range of land uses to meet the current needs and expected population growth over a 20-year timeframe. OPA 8, including the contested MRS policies achieve this direction by implementing a growth strategy identified in the Land Needs Background Study and approved by Town Council.
45Policy 2.6 of the COP sets out certain objectives with respect to development in Settlement Areas such as the Town. These objectives include ensuring the provision of an adequate supply of residential land and providing for an appropriate range and mix of low, medium and high-density housing types. The Land Needs Background Study noted that the Town has sufficient land to provide an adequate supply of residential and employment lands based on the densities and mix of housing types incorporated within OPA 08.
46Policy 8.2.5 of the COP provides enabling policies for the use and adoption of policies in the TOP enabling a Development Permit By-law. A Development Permit By-law is an approval framework which combines existing systems of zoning, site plan control, tree cutting by-laws and site alterations into a single permitting system. Through the adoption of clearly articulated development and design requirement provisions, the Town can establish specific compatibility and conformity performance standards which assist in measuring the compatibility of densities and residential typologies for gentle infill developments within established neighborhoods.
47The Tribunal finds that the MRS policies have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the COP and the TOP. The policies are good land use planning, contribute to the development of complete communities and provide appropriate intensification in the established, historic residential neighbourhoods while respecting the lower density areas in the Town.
ORDER
[48] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is dismissed and Amendment No.8 to the Official Plan (OPA -21-2021 [OPA 8]) for the Town of Carleton Place be approved.
“T.F. Ng”
T.F. NG
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.