Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 15, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003911

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

Applicant/Appellant: 1376412 Ontario Ltd. (Zeina Homes)

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

Description: To permit an 18-lot subdivision

Reference Number: ZAC-17-064

Property Address: 655 Cramer Road

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003911

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003911

OLT Case Name: 1376412 Ontario Ltd. v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1376412 Ontario Ltd. (Zeina Homes)

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal by Approval Authority

Description: To permit an 18-lot subdivision

Reference Number: 25T201710

Property Address: 655 Cramer Road

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003912

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003911

Heard: June 19 to 30, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
1376412 Ontario Ltd. (Zeina Homes)	J. Meader J. De Marinis
City of Hamilton	R. McVean
Darling International Canada Inc.	M. McAree L. Wortsman

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal was the hearing of the merits to an appeal made by 1376412 Ontario Ltd. (Zeina Homes) (“Zeina Homes”) pursuant to s. 34(11) and 51(39) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to the City of Hamilton’s (“City”) refusal of an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") and proposed draft Plan of Subdivision for the property municipally known as 655 Cramer Road (“Subject Lands”).

2The Subject Lands consist of 15.5 hectares (“ha”) of vacant agricultural lands. Zeina Homes proposes to develop the Subject Lands with an 18 residential lot subdivision with a stormwater management block and extension of the municipal road network. The Subject Lands are designated for Residential Uses within the Rural Hamilton Official Plan ("RHOP"). Zeina Homes seeks an amendment to the existing ZBA to allow for a reduction of lot sizes and frontages.

3Next to the Subject Lands lies a woodlot and an industrial rendering operation referred to as the Dundas facility, which is owned by Darling International Canada Inc. ("Darling"). This facility has been operational since the 1950s, primarily processing cooking oils and animal by-products. Both the City and Darling have identified as a major issue the concern that the proposed development may conflict with the existing operations of the Dundas facility.

MOTION

4At the start of the hearing, Darling presented a motion asking that the Tribunal undertake a half-day site visit to its Dundas facility. The primary objective of this proposed tour was to provide an illustrative demonstration of the daily trucking operations and the rendering processes that are conducted at the facility.

5This motion was supported by the City, which offered to host the afternoon portion of the Tribunal's proceedings in a local library.

6Zeina Homes strongly objected to the motion. Counsel argued passionately that the intent behind the proposed tour of the facility was purely to "shock and awe" the Tribunal, showcasing the treatment of animal carcasses throughout the rendering process. She contended that this had no relevance to the actual planning matter at hand before the Tribunal, asserting that it lacked substantive merit.

7The Tribunal acknowledged that a visit to the Dundas facility to observe the rendering process would be interesting; however, it agreed with the Zeina Homes’ counsel that such a visit would not enhance the Tribunal's decision-making process. The relevant planning issues concerning the Dundas facility primarily pertain to the external operations, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the visual evidence provided by the parties was sufficient to make an informed decision.

8The Tribunal denied Darling’s motion for a site visit.

LEGISLATION, PLANS, AND POLICIES

9The legislative and statutory framework and planning policies relevant to ZBA and draft Plan of Subdivision appeals include the Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 ("PPS"), Greenbelt Plan 2017 ("Greenbelt Plan"), and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan ("RHOP").

10On October 20, 2024, the new PPS came into effect setting out a streamlined province-wide land use planning policy framework and replacing both the previous PPS 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). In response to queries from the Tribunal regarding the transition to the new PPS, the parties sent written submissions to the Tribunal in December 2024 stating that there were no substantive changes to the applicable PPS policies. They indicated their position that no new or additional evidence nor submissions needed to be introduced to address the new PPS 2024.

11The Tribunal confirmed that the key policies pertinent to the ZBA and draft Plan of Subdivision appeals remain substantively the same across the PPS 2020 and the PPS 2024. As such, the Tribunal, in this Decision, will consider and refer to the evidence and submissions given at the hearing based on the PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan in its final determination regarding consistency with the PPS 2024.

EXHIBITS

12The following Exhibits had been filed with the Tribunal for its consideration:

EXHIBT #	DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT
1	Joint Document Book of Zeina Homes and the City
2 a.	Fraser Witness Statement
b.	Fraser Reply Witness Statement
3 a.	Levkoe Witness Statement
b.	Levkoe Reply Witness Statement
4 a.	Thorndyke Witness Statement
b.	Thorndyke Reply Witness Statement
5 a.	Whitten Witness Statement
b.	Whitten Reply Witness Statement
6	Moore Witness Statement
7	Carabott Witness Statement
8	Parker Witness Statement
9	Dalton Witness Statement
10 a.	Geisberger Witness Statement
b.	Geisberger Reply Witness Statement
11 a	Ledger Witness Statement
b.	Ledger Reply Witness Statement
12 a.	Bello Witness Statement
b.	Bello Reply Witness Statement
13	Zeina Homes – Photobook
14	Zeina Homes – Policy Schedules and Visuals
15	Zeina Homes – Berm and Fence Rendering
16	Zeina Homes – Berm and Fence Rendering Fly-over
17	Darling Document Book
18	City – Visual Evidence
19	Planning Witnesses Agreed Statement of Fact

WITNESSES

13For the ease of the reader, the following individuals had been qualified by the Tribunal as experts able to provide opinion evidence in their respective field of expertise and have signed the Tribunal’s acknowledgement of expert duties.

1. Zeina Homes Stephen Fraser – Land-use Planning Stephen Thorndyke – Odour Assessment Expert Rob Witten – Odour Monitoring Project Manager Mark Levkoe – Acoustics Engineer

2. Darling Duff Moore – Darling Director of Optimization Shared Service Buddy Ledger – Acoustics Engineer Paul Geisberger – Odour Assessment Expert

3. City Aminu Bello – City Land-use Planner

AREA CONTEXT

14The Subject Lands encompass an expansive area of approximately 15,533 square meters, situated on the southern side of Highway 5 and extending about 350 meters (“m”) west of Rock Road. The frontage is around 185 m along Highway 5 and a depth of approximately 445 m, these lands are currently vacant and have primarily served as agricultural farmland. The Subject Lands are within the Greensville Vernal Settlement Area.

15To the west, a serene woodlot provides a natural buffer, with the Darling facility operations positioned about 220 m from the nearest western boundary of the Subject Lands.

16To the south, the property is bordered by a low-density estate of single-detached homes. The eastern boundary features a low-density rural residential subdivision. A local public school and an industrial operation focused on aggregate processing are located further east.

17Nestled in a predominantly rural setting, the Subject Lands lack municipal transit services, with the nearest transit station located roughly 3.5 kilometres to the southwest.

Dundas Facility

Duff Moore - -Darling Director of Optimization Shared Service called by Darling

18Mr. Moore is an employee of Darling and a former plant manager at the Dundas facility. He provided evidence to the Tribunal with relevant contextual information about the operations at the Dundas facility.

19Mr. Moore stated that the Dundas facility has been under varied ownership, but has been a rendering facility since the 1950s.

20Mr. Moore explained the rendering process, which removes water from inedible animal by-products like bones, fat, organs, blood, and other materials. This process also utilizes used cooking fats and oils to create protein meal, tallow, and yellow grease. He noted that the rendering process generates water, which is treated and then released into the environment. Mr. Moore stated that the Dundas facility is the largest rendering facility for inedible ruminant animal by-products in Ontario. The Dundas facility usually operates 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, and sometimes even 7 days a week. He said that each week, the Dundas facility receives and processes about 5,250 metric tonnes (“MT”) of animal by-products. This includes roughly 4,300 MT of bones, dead animals, and further processed meats from over 1,100 sources. He said that also includes about 500 MT of raw animal blood, mostly from poultry, collected from the main poultry slaughterhouses. Additionally, the facility works with around 450 MT of used cooking and industrial fats and oils collected from over 10,000 locations across Ontario, including restaurants and food processing facilities.

21Mr. Moore noted that the products made at the Dundas facility are essential for livestock feed, fertilizers, and pet food. Tallow and yellow grease can be chemically processed into acids and glycerine for use in soaps, paints, cosmetics, rubber, and textiles, and are also vital for producing renewable fuels.

22Mr. Moore outlined the odour control measures for the Dundas facility, which include a biofilter to treat exhaust from the rendering operations, scrubber systems for high-intensity odours, and a separate onsite truck storage building. While Darling has made significant investments in odour control measures and is committed to continuing these efforts, the nature of the rendering process will inevitably continue to produce odours.

23There are instances when the truck storage building reaches full capacity, necessitating that some trucks park outside. When this occurs, Mr. Moore stated that weather conditions can exacerbate the situation, leading to unpleasant odours wafting through the air.

24Mr. Moore stated that the operations at the Dundas facility are characterized by a seemingly endless flow of trucks and trailers, creating a bustling environment. Along with the persistent rumble of engines and the clattering of trailers, the sound of safety alarms punctuates the atmosphere, alerting personnel to the ongoing movements of commercial vehicles.

25Mr. Moore stated that the Dundas facility operates under strict regulations, and he mentioned that Darling strives to comply with these requirements while also making significant investments in preventative measures. He is concerned that adding housing on the Subject Lands will exacerbate the number of complaints related to the facility, which could hinder its operations.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

Zeina Homes

Section 2 of the Act: Provincial Interests Stephen Fraser - Land Use Planning Expert called by Zeina Homes

26It is the opinion of Mr. Fraser that sufficient regard must be given to the matters of provincial interest listed under s. 2 (a), (d), (f), (h), (j), and (p) of the Act.

27Section 2(a) of the Act pertains to the protection of ecological systems, including natural features, functions, and areas. Mr. Fraser informed the Tribunal that Zeina Homes had submitted a Scoped Environmental Impact Statement and a General Vegetation Inventory to City staff and the Hamilton Conservation Authority. The Tribunal was informed that the City staff, who reviewed the natural heritage aspects, are satisfied with the Zeina Homes proposal, provided that appropriate draft plan conditions are met.

28Section 2(d) of the Act pertains to the conservation of significant architectural, cultural, historical, and archaeological or scientific features. The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Fraser that in 2016, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport provided two clearance letters regarding the Zeina Homes Archaeological Assessment.

29Regarding s. 2(f) of the Act on adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems, Mr. Fraser stated that the proposed development includes the connection of municipal roads to the Subject Lands, providing access to the existing road networks. Zeina Homes has submitted a Hydrogeological Study for the private services planned for the proposed lots. The Tribunal was informed that this study has been reviewed, and, subject to any conditions outlined in the draft plan of subdivision, City staff are satisfied with its findings. Mr. Fraser opined that Zeina Homes has fulfilled the obligations under s. 2(f), demonstrating that there are adequate provisions and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services, as well as waste management.

30The orderly development of safe and healthy communities, as outlined in s. 2(h) of the Act, is considered by the parties to be one of the more important issues related to the matter before the Tribunal. Mr. Fraser, opined that the proposed development is situated within a settlement area identified in the RHOP for residential development. Mr. Fraser emphasized that the proposed development by Zeina Homes presents an opportunity to continue the orderly development of the existing subdivision adjacent to the proposed lands.

31Section 2(j) discusses the necessary provisions for a comprehensive range of housing options. Mr. Fraser informed the Tribunal that he believes the proposed development by Zeina Homes exemplifies sound planning, as it will help to increase the housing stock, particularly addressing the needs of rural settlement areas.

32Mr. Fraser presented mapping evidence to the Tribunal indicating that the Subject Lands are included within the RHOP's Greenville Rural Settlement Area Plan. He explained that this demonstrates that the Subject Lands have always been designated for future development. In his opinion, the proposed development gives regard to the intent of s. 2(p), which states that the lands should be appropriate for growth and development.

Section 51(24) of the Act: Draft Plan of Subdivision

33Section 51(24) of the Act requires that a plan of subdivision take into account various factors, including health and safety, accessibility for all individuals, and the overall welfare of both current and future residents of the community. Mr. Fraser believes that the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the proposed development of the Subject Lands will effectively address these concerns.

34Mr. Fraser expressed his opinion that the criteria in subsections (c), (d), (f), and (g) of s. 51(24) are particularly relevant to the proposed development.

35He indicated that the plan of subdivision application currently before the Tribunal is in accordance with s. 51(24)(c), as the proposed development aligns with the RHOP and the elements outlined in the Greensville Rural Settlement Area Plan.

36Mr. Fraser noted that the Subject Lands are situated within a designated settlement area that permits single detached residential uses under the current Zoning By-laws. Therefore, he believes the plan of subdivision is a suitable land use in line with the objectives of s. 51(24)(d).

37The ZBA submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration, requests that the proposed lot sizes maintain a minimum lot width of 21 m and a minimum lot size of 0.7 ha. According to Mr. Fraser, these proposed dimensions for lot sizes consider s. 51(24)(f) and are appropriate not only for a rural estate plan of subdivision but are also consistent with existing surrounding subdivisions.

38Section s. 51(24)(g) addresses the potential restrictions on the proposed subdivision and its proximity to the Darling facility and Highway 5, highlighting the need for a Noise Study and an Odour Impact Assessment.

39Based on the Environmental Noise Feasibility Study conducted by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., dated May 4, 2023, it was concluded that sound levels from Highway 5 and the Darling facility can be mitigated to comply with Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (“Ministry of Environment” or “MECP”) guidelines using feasible noise control measures. Mr. Fraser stated that these include adding air conditioning and sound barriers to some lots.

40Mr. Fraser relied on Valcoustics Canada Ltd.'s findings, which indicate that the Ministry of Environment Noise Guideline NPC-300 is the appropriate guideline for assessing noise impacts, rather than the D-series guidelines. He stated that the recommended noise mitigation measures, including sound barriers on the western edge, will ensure compliance with stationary sound level limits.

41In terms of odour mitigation from the Darling facility, Mr. Fraser informed the Tribunal that he relied on the witness statement of Steven Thorndyke who was qualified with expertise in odour assessment and the findings of the Order Impact Assessment Summary for a proposed residential development prepared by Ortec, dated December 7, 2021. This report outlined the on-site improvements that have been made to the Darling facility, including the installation of a wastewater treatment plant and a biofilter odour control system.

42Relying on Mr. Thorndyke's witness statement, Mr. Fraser stated that it also addressed Darling's planned mitigation measures, which include amending the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA”) to install a dedicated used cooking oil evaporator system to remove a production bottleneck. Additionally, the plan involves replacing three existing boilers with two new boilers of similar overall capacity and redirecting exhaust from the truck storage building so that it is treated for odour removal in the biofilter before being discharged into the atmosphere.

43Mr. Fraser explained further mitigation measures for the Subject Lands as proposed by Ortec, including a dense row of planted trees along the western property line, as well as noise reduction features to help minimize the perceived odour impact.

44It was the expert opinion of Mr. Fraser that the Zeina Homes proposed ZBA and draft Plan of Subdivision applications give regard to the Act and represent good land-use planning.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

45Mr. Bello testified that section 2 of the Act mandates that the Minister, planning authorities, and the Tribunal consider provincial interest matters, including public health and safety, and suitable locations for growth and development.

46He further stated that section 51(24) of the Act requires that when reviewing a draft plan of subdivision, factors such as the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of current and future inhabitants must be considered, alongside the impact on provincial interests, public interest, conformity with the official plan, and land use restrictions.

47It was Mr. Bello's expert opinion, that the proposal does not adequately address matters of provincial interest due to potential adverse effects from the Darling facility on the health and safety of residents. He stated that it also fails to maintain the required separation distance between sensitive land uses and industrial activities, violating the D-6 Compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses ("D-6 Guidelines") issued by the Ministry of the Environment. Mr. Bello explains that the proposed development is thus inconsistent with both the PPS and the RHOP policies.

Provincial Policy Statement

Zeina Homes

Stephen Fraser - Land Use Planning Expert called by Zeina Homes

48Mr. Fraser stated that in his expert opinion the Zeina Homes application, subject to any draft plan conditions, is consistent with the PPS.

49Policy 1 of the PPS focuses on the management and direction of land use planning, aiming to achieve resilient development and sustainable land use patterns. Mr. Fraser believes that the relevant policies outlined in policy 1 support the appropriateness of the Zeina Homes application.

50Mr. Fraser informed the Tribunal that, in his opinion, the proposed development promotes efficient long-term growth, contributes to a diverse range of residential housing options, and avoids land use patterns that could raise public health and safety concerns. He views it as an effective expansion of a settlement area that can be easily connected to municipal infrastructure and services and promotes the conservation of biodiversity. As a result, Mr. Fraser concluded that the proposed development meets the objectives of PPS policies 1.1.1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (g), and (h).

51Mr. Fraser expressed his belief that the proposed development aligns with the intent of PPS policy 1.1.3.1 because it emphasizes development and growth within a designated settlement area. He also pointed out that it adheres to PPS policy 1.1.3.2, which outlines land use patterns for a settlement area based on density and a mix of land uses, particularly regarding efficient land use and resource management.

52Pursuant to PPS policy 1.1.3.6, Mr. Fraser indicated that, in his opinion, the proposed new development by Zeina Homes is part of a designated growth area adjacent to an existing built-up area. He believes it represents an efficient use of land, municipal infrastructure, and public service facilities.

53In regards to PPS policy 1.1.4.1, specifically points (a), (c), (e), and (h), Mr. Fraser believes that the proposed development satisfies the criteria for fostering a healthy, integrated, and viable rural area. He says his assessment is backed by the design of the development, which is intended to maintain a predominantly rural character within the Greensville Rural Settlement Area. The area is characterized by a blend of low-density residential and agricultural uses, contributing to its overall rural ambiance.

54The Greenville Rural Secondary Area has restrictions due to municipal servicing capacity. Mr. Fraser informed the Tribunal that the proposed development is a limited form of residential development, which will contribute to resources without significantly straining them. This aligns with the rural settlement directions outlined in PPS policy 1.1.4.2, which promotes a focus on growth and development.

55Policy 1.2.6 of the PPS addresses land use compatibility, focusing on a development's impact on major facilities and sensitive land uses by minimizing adverse effects from odour, noise, and contaminants. Mr. Fraser stated that when avoidance is not feasible, development of adjacent sensitive land uses must demonstrate a need, evaluate alternatives, and ensure minimized impacts.

56The Subject Lands, designated Settlement Residential in the Greensville Settlement Area and zoned for single-detached residential uses, do not require alternative locations for residential development. In the opinion of Mr. Fraser, the need for the proposed land use is confirmed, and any potential noise and odour issues are addressed by the Appellant’s expert witnesses.

57PPS policy 1.4 outlines housing policies, emphasizing a mix of housing types and densities, directing development to areas with adequate infrastructure, and establishing standards that facilitate affordable housing while maintaining public safety. According to Mr. Fraser, the proposed development aligns with these policies.

58The Tribunal was informed that PPS policy 1.6.6 covers sewage, water, and stormwater services. Planning for these services must ensure sustainability, financial viability, and protection of health and the environment. Mr. Fraser gave testimony that when municipal services are unavailable, individual on-site services can be considered if site conditions permit their long-term use without negative impacts. Lot creation may only proceed with sufficient reserve sewage and water capacity confirmed. Policy 1.2.6 of the PPS addresses land use compatibility, focusing on the development's impact on major facilities and sensitive land uses by minimizing adverse effects from odour, noise, and contaminants. When avoidance is not feasible, development of adjacent sensitive land uses must demonstrate a need, evaluation of alternatives, and minimized impacts.

59Mr. Fraser testified that tjhe need for the proposed land use is confirmed, and any potential noise and odour issues conditions have been addressed through the noise and odour expert witness statements.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

60AIt was Mr. Bello’s expert opinion that the proposed development aligns with policy 1.1.3.2, regarding land use patterns within settlement areas being based on densities and a variety of land uses, as Zeina Homes fosters the efficient utilization of land and resources by focusing development within the established built-up area.

61In accordance with the PPS policy 1.2.6.1, Mr. Bello emphasized that major facilities and sensitive land uses should be designed and developed to prevent, or if that is not feasible, to lessen negative impacts from odours, noise, and other pollutants. He stated that this strategy is intended to safeguard public health and safety while ensuring the sustainable operation of major facilities in accordance with provincial standards. The PPS characterizes major facilities to include airports, manufacturing sites, transportation systems, rail and marine operations, sewage treatment plants, waste management facilities, oil and gas pipelines, energy production, and resource extraction activities. It is Mr. Bello’s opinion that the Dundas facility as a 24-hour rendering operation should be considered a sensitive land use and a major facility.

62Mr. Bello informed the Tribunal that PPS policy 1.2.6.2, regarding land use compatibility, mandates that planning authorities must protect the long-term viability of existing industrial and manufacturing uses from encroachment by only permitting adjacent sensitive land uses if certain criteria are met.

63In his opinion, the proposed development fails to demonstrate that adverse odour impacts from the Dundas facility will be mitigated, thereby necessitating the protection of its long-term viability. Additionally, he stated that the Appellant has not demonstrated an absolute need for residential lots, as alternative sites are available east of the property and outside the required 300-m separation distance from the Dundas facility, as stated in the D-6 Guidelines.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020

Zeina Homes

Stephen Fraser - Land Use Planning Expert called by Zeina Homes

64According to Mr. Fraser, the following Growth Plan policies apply to the Zeina Homes proposed development.

65Policy 2.2.1.2 states that most growth will be directed to settlement areas that:

a) Have a delineated built boundary;

b) Are served by existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems; and

c) Can support the achievement of complete communities.

66Growth will be limited in:

a) Rural settlements;

b) Areas without existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems; or

c) Locations within the Greenbelt Area.

67In the testimony of Mr. Fraser, he stated that the proposed development will primarily occur in designated settlement areas.

68Mr. Fraser stated that the proposed development does not have municipal water and wastewater services, which aligns with the limitations for rural settlements as outlined in policy 2.2.1.2 of the Growth Plan.

69Policy 2.2.5.8 states that the development of sensitive land uses, major retail uses, or major office uses will, in accordance with provincial guidelines, avoid or, where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on industrial, manufacturing, or other uses that are particularly vulnerable to encroachment. Residential land use is permitted, subject to mitigation measures related to noise and odour. Mr. Fraser gave an opinion that measures such as the installation of air conditioners for certain lots and the use of a noise attenuation berm, or a combination of a berm and noise barriers, can adequately mitigate noise onsite to acceptable levels for the proposed development.

70Similarly, Mr. Fraser stated that, odour mitigation measures are currently implemented at the Darling facility, which includes a wastewater treatment plant and a biofilter odour control system. He said that the mitigation measures suggested by Ortech for the Subject Lands, including a dense row of planted trees along the westerly property line and the incorporation of noise attenuation features, can minimize the perceived impact of odour.

71The Growth Plan's policy 2.2.9 governs Rural Areas. Policy 2.2.9.6 allows new residential lots or units in settlement areas or specific rural locations with approved zoning as of June 16, 2006. In the expert opinion of Mr. Fraser, the proposed development meets the Growth Plan's definition of more than three units, is situated in the Rural Settlement Area of Greensville, and has the necessary Settlement Residential designation and zoning since before June 16, 2006. Therefore, he says it complies with Policy 2.2.9.6.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

72Mr. Bello stated that the Growth Plan provides a framework for implementing the Province's vision for managing growth across the region to the year 2051 and supports the achievement of complete communities. Policy 2.2 of the Growth Plan provides policies for where and how to grow.

73Mr. Bello stated that forecasted growth will be focused on specific areas in settlements. The priority areas for growth are established built-up areas and strategic growth locations. Within settlement areas, growth will also be prioritized in established built-up areas, strategic growth locations, places with existing or planned transit, especially where higher-order transit is available or planned, and areas with existing or planned public service facilities.

74The proposed development is directed to a settlement area as defined by the Growth Plan and is located within a delineated built-up area. In the opinion of Mr. Bello, it is consistent with policy 2.2.1.2 as it promotes the efficient use of land and resources by directing development within the existing built-up area and utilizing private servicing. He says that this approach avoids the need for the expansion of municipal servicing infrastructure.

75The proposed development of sensitive land uses, major retail uses, or major office uses must, in accordance with provincial guidelines, avoid or, where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on industrial, manufacturing, or other uses that are particularly vulnerable to encroachment. In Mr. Bello's opinion, the Darling facility is vulnerable to encroachment due to the likelihood of generating potential odour and noise impacts that could interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of private property. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation measures do not effectively minimize any potential adverse effects. Therefore, he opined that the proposal does not conform with policy 2.2.5.8 of the Growth Plan.

Greenbelt Plan 2017

Zeina Homes

Stephen Fraser - Land Use Planning Expert called by Zeina Homes

76Mr. Fraser stated that the Subject Lands are located within the Protected Countryside as defined by the Greenbelt Plan. However, these lands are also situated within a Settlement Area. The Rural Hamilton Official Plan designates Greensville as a Hamlet in RHOP Schedule A — Provincial Plans. As such the following policy applies:

Policy 3.4.4.1. Hamlets are subject to the policies of the Growth Plan and continue to be governed by official plans and related programs or initiatives and are not subject to the policies of this Plan, save for the policies of sections 3.1.5, 3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.3 and 3.4.2. Limited growth is permitted through infill and intensification of Hamlets subject to appropriate water and sewage services.

77Mr. Fraser's testimony articulates that the proposed development constitutes a modest expansion of residential capacity within the Settlement Area and is adequately supported by existing water and wastewater infrastructure. He stated that, given that the Subject Lands are situated within an established Hamlet, the proposed development aligns with the provisions of the Greenbelt Plan.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

78Mr. Bello stated that the Subject Lands are located within a Hamlet area under the Greenbelt Plan. In Hamlet Areas of the Protected Countryside, policy 3.4.4 of the Greenbelt Plan states that Hamlets follow the rules of the Growth Plan and are managed by official plans and related programs. They do not follow the rules of this Plan, except for the ones in sections 3.1.5, 3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.3, and 3.4.2. He stated that limited growth in Hamlets is allowed through infill and intensification, as long as there are proper water and sewage services available.

79It is the opinion of Mr. Bello, that the proposed development is inconsistent with the Greenbelt Plan because Hamlet Areas within the Protected Countryside are subject to Growth Plan policy and governed by RHOP policies. In his opinion, the proposed development does not conform to the Growth Plan and is therefore not consistent with the Greenbelt Plan.

Rural Hamilton Official Plan

Zeina Homes

Stephen Fraser - Land Use Planning Expert called by Zeina Homes

80Mr. Fraser summarized that the Greenville Rural Settlement Area Policy of the RHOP states that when new residential development is proposed near existing industrial areas, including the aggregate heavy industrial use to the north, the developer must consult with the appropriate public agencies. They are also required to conduct any necessary studies to assess whether the proximity to such industries could negatively affect the enjoyment of property for existing and future residents. He said this includes evaluating potential impacts from emissions such as odours, smoke, dust, noise, gases, fumes, vibrations, or refuse matter on both residents and the operations or expansion of existing industrial users.

81According to RHOP policy 3.5.5.11, Mr. Fraser indicated that, in line with appropriate provincial regulations and guidelines, distance separations, warning clauses, and any other measures identified in the reports may be required during the subdivision or consent approval process.

82In his expert opinion, appropriate draft plan conditions can ensure the implementation of mitigation measures for noise and odour, thereby guaranteeing compatibility with the adjacent Darling facility. For noise, the mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Noise Feasibility Study prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., include provisions for the installation of air conditioning units, sound barriers of varying heights, and warning clauses in the purchasing agreements for all lots.

83The Tribunal was informed that currently, the Darling facility has implemented mitigation measures, including a wastewater treatment plant and a biofilter odour control system. Additionally, Stephen Thorndyke's Witness Statement confirms that further upgrades to the Darling facility are planned.

84Mr. Fraser believes that these measures will effectively protect the adjacent industrial facility from the proposed residential development and ensure compliance with policies 3.5.5.10 and 3.5.5.11 of the Greensville Rural Settlement Area Plan outlined in the RHOP.

85In his testimony, Mr. Fraser explained that the proposed development complies with the Noise and Vibration Emission policies outlined in the RHOP specifically, policies B.3.6.3.19, B.3.6.3.21, and the related PPS policy. He stated that these policies mirror the objectives of the PPS and the Growth Plan, particularly in addressing and mitigating perceived negative impacts of noise from the Darling facility on nearby residential areas.

86The Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, conducted by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. and dated May 4, 2023, indicates that noise can be reduced to an acceptable level, ensuring a suitable acoustic environment for future residents. Mr. Fraser stated that this finding aligns with RHOP policies B.3.6.3.19 and B.3.6.3.21. Additionally, Mr. Fraser believes that a combination of a natural berm and an acoustical barrier should be designed to enhance both the streetscape and the community's overall design.

87Mr. Fraser provided an opinion indicating that the proposed development complies with the criteria for the approval of plans for subdivisions, as outlined in policies F. 1.14.1.2 (a) and F. 1.14.1.2 (b) of the RHOP. He stated that since residential land use is already permitted, and provided that appropriate mitigation measures related to noise and odour are implemented, the proposed residential development can proceed as planned through a plan of subdivision utilizing private services.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

88Mr. Bello stated that the Subject Lands are designated as "Hamlets (Rural Settlement Areas)" and classified as a "Rural Settlement Area" in the RHOP. He stated that they are identified as "Settlement Residential" and "Major Development Area A" in the Greensville Rural Settlement Area Plan.

89Mr. Bello stated that the RHOP defines Rural Settlement Areas as regions serving residential and service needs for both the local community and surrounding rural areas, featuring a mix of clustered land uses outside the Urban Area. Developments in these areas must comply with the policies laid out in the Greensville Rural Settlement Area Plan.

90According to Mr. Bello, under RHOP policy B.3.6.3.19, developments must avoid conflicts between sensitive land uses and emissions. In his opinion, the proposed development does not meet the D-6 Guidelines, lacking adequate separation distance and odour mitigation measures, thus failing to comply with policy B.3.6.3.19.

91Mr. Bello stated that policy B.3.6.3.21 emphasizes the need for noise attenuation measures, suggesting that sound barriers should only be used when necessary and must complement community design. The proposed 5.8-m-high sound barrier for Lots 11 to 14 may negatively impact visual aesthetics and views into the mature woodlot.

92RHOP policy F.1.14.1.2 outlines criteria for subdivision approvals, including regarding compliance with land use designations, adequate services, adverse impacts on transportation or the environment, effective integration with adjacent lands, and negative effects on municipal finances. Mr. Bello stated that the proposal does not meet policy A.3.5.5.10 as it fails to comply with the D-6 Guidelines regarding separation distances.

93Mr. Bello stated that City staff believe that the proposed development meets criteria (b) and (c) of RHOP policy F.1, indicating adequate servicing and no anticipated adverse environmental impacts. Criterion (d) is also met through existing municipal road use.

94Mr. Bello stated that policy A.1.2.4 requires development in Rural Settlement Areas to conform to the built environment, natural heritage policies, and sustainable servicing. He stated that the proposed development complies with this policy through compatible building characteristics, is not expected to adversely impact the natural heritage system, and has demonstrated adequate water and wastewater services.

Odour Issues

Zeina Homes

Rob Witten - Odour Monitoring Project Manager called by Zeina Homes

95Mr. Witten served as the project manager for the ORTECH monitoring program, which aimed to assess the impact of odourous emissions from the Dundas facility on the proposed development. The program also sought to identify any changes in odour impact since a similar monitoring program was conducted by ORTECH in 2018.

96Mr. Witten stated that odour monitoring was carried out during five separate sessions, specifically on days with no precipitation and when winds were blowing from the west or northwest to capture the worst-case odour impact. The focus of the monitoring program was on emissions from the Dundas facility, and the parameters tracked included observation time, measured wind speed, observed wind direction, odour intensity, hedonic tone (which reflects the pleasantness of the odour), and the character of the odour, describing its specific smell.

97Mr. Witten testified that the results of the 2022 ambient air monitoring program indicate a reduction in odours detected from the Dundas facility to the Subject Lands compared to the findings from the 2018 monitoring program. Mr. Witten summarized that the exact reasons for this decrease remain unclear, but recognized that it could be attributed to enhancements in plant processes and odour control systems. The majority of the detected odours were classified as resembling vegetation. Similar to the 2018 assessment, the three odours identified as likely originating from the Dundas facility were rated with a slight intensity of 1 out of 4 with 1 being slight and 4 being extreme. Based on Mr. Witten's experience, odours at this “slight” intensity are estimated to manifest at a few odour units (ou). While residents might occasionally notice odours when winds are from the west to northwest, complaints regarding these odours are considered unlikely.

98Furthermore, Mr. Witten stated that the findings from this ambient air odour monitoring program were compared to the Air quality dispersion modelling (“AERMOD”) results from annual odour compliance testing conducted at the Dundas facility between 2016 and 2019. The predictions made by the AERMOD model indicate that, when odours are present, they would typically be perceived as having a “slight” intensity at the proposed development site, aligning with the outcomes observed in this monitoring program.

Stephen Thorndyke - Odour Assessment Expert called by Zeina Homes

99In Mr. Thorndyke's opinion, the proposed development of the subject lands is compatible with the Darling facility and other nearby facilities. Based on the results of tests conducted by ORTECH and reviews of Darling documents, he stated that the proposed development is not expected to experience any adverse odour effects resulting from the Darling facility. He stated that AERMOD dispersion modelling results indicate that the odours emitted from the Darling facility will have a lesser impact on the Zeina Homes Subject Lands compared to some existing residences.

100Mr. Thorndyke explained that AERMOD atmospheric dispersion modelling is used to predict odour concentrations at existing residences near the Darling facility as well as at the proposed development. The Tribunal was informed that the AERMOD dispersion model is approved by the MECP. Odour concentrations are predicted by determining how the odours discharged from various sources at the Darling facility disperse in the atmosphere before they reach sensitive receptors. The purpose of this dispersion modeling is to assess the potential odour impact on nearby residences.

101Mr. Thorndyke explained to the Tribunal how the different types of raw materials used at the Dundafacility can cause odours. The Dundas facility is classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as a “Rendering and Meat Processing from Carcasses” business. Mr. Thorndyke stated that the facility processes raw materials from the animal and food industries, such as offal, bone, deadstock, used cooking oil, food-grade fats, oils, and animal blood. Trucks or tankers transport these materials to the facility, and they are covered with tarpaulins during transport.

102The processes at the facility can produce odours. To manage this, he said that the facility uses a biological oxidation system, or biofilter, to reduce the odour before it is released through the main stack.

103Mr. Thorndyke reviewed the history of odour complaints at the Dunda facility. In the past five years, the facility received a total of 135 odour complaints. Out of these, 60 complaints were confirmed as valid. Of the 60 confirmed complaints, 38 occurred when loaded trucks or trailers were outside the truck storage building. During 23 of these 38 complaints, issues with the process were identified due to the loaded trucks outside the truck storage building.

104Mr. Thorndyke noted that the Dundas facility has already implemented or plans to implement several measures to reduce odour. These include using the main stack to discharge odour emissions from the biofilter, which treats odour from the processing equipment and buildings. The facility also plans to channel emissions from the truck storage building to the biofilter and to only park trailers outside the truck storage building when it is full.

105It is the opinion of Mr. Thorndyke that the air quality study of the odours from the Dundas facility shows that the proposed development is compatible with these odours. The study predicts that the highest odour levels at the Subject Lands will rarely go above 1.0 odour units. Under these conditions, people will only notice the odours occasionally at the Subject Lands, and there will be no negative effects from the odours.

106Mr. Thorndyke stated that the Dundas facility is classified as D-6 Guideline Class II. This classification is based on its odour output, which is described as “frequent and occasionally intense,” and its odour process, which produces “periodic outputs of minor annoyance.” He stated that the proposed development area is about 200 m away from the Darling facility. This distance is greater than the recommended minimum separation distance of 70 m for a Class II facility.

107Based on the dispersion modelling results, Mr. Thorndyke does not expect any odour problems at the Subject Lands if the planned odour control measures outlined in the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report (“ESDM”) report are implemented.

108Mr. Thorndyke reiterated that there are limited effective odour control measures for the proposed development area. The berm planned as a noise barrier, along with rows of suitable trees, may help reduce odour impacts. The trees can improve air movement and capture odourous chemicals on their leaves. He informed the Tribunal that many scientific studies show that trees can lower ambient air odour levels, especially in rural areas.

109It is the expert opinion of Mr. Thorndyke that it is anticipated that the odour emissions from the Dundas facility will infrequently result in the detection of slight, unpleasant smells at the proposed development site. According to the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, adverse odour effects are not expected to occur. Mr. Thorndyke recommended that the Darling facility proceed with a revision to their ECA, incorporating the odour emission reduction methods outlined in the ESDM report.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

110Mr. Bello reviewed his understanding of the D-6 Guidelines issued by the Ministry of the Environment, which offer recommendations to alleviate negative impacts stemming from the proximity of sensitive land uses to industrial sites and vice versa. He particularly stated that it addresses industrial operations producing fugitive emissions and complements the D-Series Guidelines relating to other land uses, such as sewage treatment plants and landfills.

111Mr. Bello testified that efforts to ensure land use compatibility assist planning authorities in safeguarding the environment and the public from nuisances generated by facilities, including landfills and factories. The D-6 Guidelines are applicable when new sensitive land uses are proposed near established facilities and during specific site development reviews.

112The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Bello that the D-6 Guidelines specify a potential influence zone of 1,000 m for a Class III facility. He opined that an Odour Impact Assessment was necessary to assess the possible effects of the industrial operation on the residential subdivision.

113The D-6 Guidelines assist in land use planning regarding separation distances between industrial activities and sensitive land uses based on the Ministry of Environment’s experiences and research. Mr. Bello testified that City staff reached out to the MECP concerning the subdivision plan, and the Darling facility was classified as a Class III operation due to its scale and intensity. In his opinion the Dundas facility is categorized as Class III due to its large size, round-the-clock operations, and considerable output of animal by-products. Class III facilities are highly likely to produce emissions and nuisance outputs. It is the evidence of Mr. Bello that according to Section 4.3 of the D-6 Guidelines, incompatible development is forbidden within specified areas, irrespective of mitigation measures, with exact minimum separation distances determined by facility classification: Class I—20 m, Class II—70 m, Class III—300 m. It was Mr. Bello’s opinion that Section 4.3 suggests that no development is permitted within 300 m of a Class III facility, even if mitigation strategies are in place.

Darling

Paul Geisberger - Odour Assessment Expert called by Darling

114Mr. Geisberger explained to the Tribunal that the Dundas facility actively manages odours during the rendering process. Odour levels are influenced by the degradation of raw materials, which can worsen with age and higher ambient temperatures.

115He testified that raw materials arrive in tarped trucks and are stored in a building maintained under negative pressure to contain odours. All material handling occurs within closed, negatively pressurized buildings. Exhaust air, except from the truck storage, is treated in a biofilter for odour control before being released through a 45-m tall stack.

116Mr. Geisberger stated that high-intensity gas streams are pre-treated in scrubbers before reaching the biofilter. The incoming materials contain roughly 50% water, generating significant odourous wastewater.

117Initial wastewater treatment occurs in a closed Primary Treatment Building, with air exhausted to the biofilter. He stated that continued treatment occurs in large outdoor aeration basins followed by clarifiers and storage ponds, which have lower odour emissions due to their surface area.

118Mr. Geisbereger stated that the stormwater basin captures stormwater and can manage wastewater surges, with minimal odour emissions before pumping treated water into the Christie Conservation Area. There are also minor odour sources, like tallow tanks, empty trucks, and a cooling tower.

119Mr. Geisberger provided the Tribunal with a detailed explanation of the area's history and current dispersion models of odour emissions. Mr. Geisberger believes that Darling is taking various steps to manage the odours at the Dundas facility. However, despite these efforts, he stated that it is unrealistic to expect that the facility will completely eliminate all odours.

Noise Issues

Zeina Homes

Mark Levkoe - Acoustics Engineer called by Zeina Homes

120Mr. Levkoe informed the Tribunal that there are two major sources of noise to consider in this matter. The first is the noise impact from the proposed lots on the Subject Lands that are adjacent to Highway 15. The second source is the operational noise from the Dundas facility and its overall impact on the Subject Lands.

121Mr. Levkoe explained that sound levels during the day and night were measured using a noise prediction model from the MECP, based on road traffic data. He stated that these sound levels were measured at a height of 4.5 m above ground, which is similar to the height of a second-story bedroom window in two-story houses. The highest sound levels were 63 decibels (“dBA”) during the day and 57 dBA at night, both occurring at Lot 17, which is at the northern edge of the site. The daytime sound level of 63 dBA was the highest unmitigated level. At Lot 16, the daytime sound level is predicted to be 56 dBA. Other lots are expected to have daytime sound levels below 55 dBA.

122To meet indoor sound level guidelines, Mr. Levkoe stated that construction must use suitable materials for exterior walls, windows, and doors. It is assumed that walls will take up 70% and windows 30% of the floor area. All buildings will use construction that meets the Ontario Building Code's minimum standards to achieve indoor noise guidelines.

123Mr. Levkoe stated that the daytime sound levels for Lots 16 and 17 are above 55 dBA, while all other lots will have levels of 55 dBA or lower. He said to reduce the daytime sound level at Lot 17 to 55 dBA, a sound barrier of 3.9 m high is needed. A 1.8-meter-high barrier will lower the daytime sound level to 59 dBA, which meets the +5 dBA limit allowed by MECP guidelines. At Lot 16, a 1.8-meter-high barrier will lower the sound level to 51 dBA. It was Mr. Levkoe's recommendation that the sound barrier must extend along the northern property lines of Lots 16 and 17, then run south along the east property line of Lot 17 to provide adequate noise screening.

124With regards to the Dundas facility, Mr. Levkoe, asserted that the proposed development is acoustically feasible and can be harmoniously integrated into the existing sound environment. He said that an analysis of the anticipated noise levels generated by road traffic on Highway 5 and operations at the Darling Facility indicates that these levels can be effectively mitigated to adhere to the noise guidelines specified in the MECP Noise Guideline NPC-300 for the subject site.

125To achieve compliance with these noise limits, Mr. Levkoe recommended several practical noise control measures to be implemented, which are widely utilized throughout Ontario. He explained that strategies include the installation of individually controlled air conditioning units in homes, which will reduce reliance on open windows for cooling and consequently diminish indoor noise levels. Additionally, the construction of sound barriers, such as acoustically treated fences or landscaping features in the rear yards of select lots, will further attenuate noise from external sources.

126Mr. Levkoe explained that rigorous adherence to the sound level limits set forth in the Noise Guideline NPC-300 can effectively minimize the potential for any adverse effects related to noise, ensuring a tranquil living environment for future residents while maintaining compatibility with surrounding infrastructure.

127Mr. Levkoe testified that, in his expert opinion, the results of the sound monitoring indicate that the proposed Zeina Homes development is consistent with the relevant PPS policies aimed at protecting industrial facilities from incompatible developments. He stated that it conforms to the Growth Plans regarding land use compatible with existing industrial facilities and complies with RHOP policies designed to protect industrial lands.

128Finally, it was recommended by Mr. Levkoe that warning clauses should be included on title to inform future occupants of the potential noise situation.

City

Aminu Bello - Land-use Planning Expert called by the City

129Mr. Bello stated that suitable mitigation strategies are required for stationary noise sources as detailed in the NPC-300 Guidelines, such as noise barriers, along with warning clauses that will be included in the upcoming subdivision agreement and all purchase and sale contracts.

130Mr. Bello informed the Tribunal that the Noise Feasibility Study conducted by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. suggests the erection of a 5.8-meter high acoustical wall at the back of Lots 11, 12, 13, and 14. However, he felt that the height of this wall will lead to an unappealing look along the streetscape, which could cause negative visual effects and restrict public views of the existing mature woodlot. For this reason, Mr. Bello gave the opinion that the proposal does not comply with RHOP policy B.3.6.3.21, which states that if noise barriers are required, they should be designed to enhance the streetscape and the overall community aesthetic.

Darling

Buddy Ledger - Acoustic Engineer called by Darling

131Mr. Ledger noted that Darling is very proactive in managing its facility's noise levels as much as feasibly possible. However, he stated that despite implementing various noise mitigation measures, the impacts of the bio-filter and exhaust fans, idling trucks, vehicle movements, and bird deterrent sound systems still persist. There are limits to what can be achieved in terms of noise reduction.

132He stated that the Acoustics Assessment Report ("AAR") for the Dundas facility from HGC Engineering, dated February 21, 2006, previously evaluated compliance with the noise limits and found that, with suggested measures, the Dundas facility would meet them. The MECP approved this report.

133The MECP now requires compliance checks with the new Noise Guideline NPC-300. Mr. Ledger testified that the updated assessment confirmed that the Dundas facility meets these new requirements and will continue to do so with the proposed evaporator system, pending MECP approval.

134Mr. Ledger walked the Tribunal through the comprehensive noise mitigation efforts undertaken by Darling. He explained his expert opinion that Darling has made significant strides in establishing a thorough inventory, quantifying, and assessing the noise emissions emanating from the Dundas facility. Through Mr. Ledger’s analysis of the data collected on these emissions, Darling has been able to pinpoint and implement a range of effective noise mitigation strategies. These initiatives not only meet but exceed the applicable provincial standards, ensuring that the Dundas facility operates within a framework of environmental responsibility and community consideration.

135According to Mr. Ledger, the distance between the eastern property line of the Dundas facility and the nearest occupied residential dwellings to the east - located near Highway 5 and aligned with the proposed development by Zeina Homes - is approximately 450 m. If Zeina Homes proposed development is constructed, this separation will decrease to about 100 m.

136Mr. Ledger testified that proximity and direction are crucial when assessing noise levels at a receiver location from noise sources. The primary attenuation factor in noise propagation is geometrical spreading, or distance attenuation. He stated that many noise sources, including the Dundas facility, emit sound directionally, with a significant output towards the east.

137Mr. Ledge stated that the Zeina Homes’ proposed development is planned eastward, increasing the number of residential units within the 300 m separation distance. He stated that noise sources like aeration basins on the east side of the Dundas facility will likely dominate noise levels for these new residents. Previous noise mitigation efforts by Darling, aimed at the facility’s west side, will not benefit those to the east, where the main noise sources are large, open-air systems.

138An assessment of Zeina Homes’ property indicated noise levels from the Dundas facility met criteria set forth by the relevant guidelines. However, Mr. Ledger stated that noise modelling for the proposed layout showed that lots 10 to 14 exceeded these criteria during the evening and night by about 1 dBA.

139Mr. Ledger stated that in 2018, Valcoustics Canada Ltd. also noted potential exceedances of up to 4 dBA in their assessments for the proposed residential development. Their 2020 addendum recommended a 5.8-metre-high sound barrier for lots 11 to 14 and a 2.0-metre-high barrier for lots 10 and 15, along with designing lots 9 to 16 to avoid noise-sensitive windows on the second floors.

140Mr. Ledger states that a sound barrier on the western side of Zeina Homes’ proposed development could help reduce noise levels to comply with the NPC-300 Noise Guideline limits. However, he explained that there are three significant issues related to the recommendations made by Valcoustics:

(a) The sound barrier has been designed by Valcoustics at a concept level of detail such that the noise levels at the Zeina Homes’ property marginally comply with the NPC-300 sound level limits. This leaves no room for minor variations in noise levels that occur, particularly as the sources age. It also leaves no room for future expansion at the Dundas facility that may be required to, for example, meet the needs of the agribusiness industry. Valcoustics’ sound barrier design will constrain the Dundas facility’s future operations and equipment.

(b) The sound barrier has been sited on what is proposed to be six separate residential lots. It is not clear how, or by whom, maintenance of the barrier will be undertaken. Further, the environmental compliance of the Dundas facility will be subject to the continued service and effectiveness of this sound barrier. Darling takes its environmental compliance obligations seriously and cannot risk relying on a mitigation measure over which it has no control or access to ensure compliance with Darling’s environmental obligations.

(c) The location of Valcoustics’ proposed sound barrier places it far from the noise sources at the Dundas facility and far from the specific points of reception at the proposed residential dwellings. As a result, the barrier proposed by Valcoustics will provide very little attenuation in the areas where it is required. It is also unclear whether that attenuation will be sufficient at second row receivers within the Zeina Homes proposed residential development.

141It was the opinion of Mr. Ledger that noise emissions from the Dundas facility exceed the MECP noise limits outlined in NPC-300 concerning Zeina Homes proposed development. If Zeina Homes development is approved, it will place Darling in non-compliance with its ECA. This creates a significant risk for Darling as it could face enforcement actions from the MECP for this non-compliance.

142Additionally, he stated that the proposed use of a noise barrier, as recommended by Valcoustics, is not a sufficient mitigation measure to ensure that Darling remains compliant with its ECA. The reliance on this sound barrier places mitigation outside of Darling’s control. Darling cannot risk depending on a measure that they cannot manage or access to meet their environmental obligations.

143Furthermore, it was Mr. Ledger’s expert opinion, that if the sound barrier only brings Darling within the noise limits specified in NPC-300, it may restrict their ability to secure MECP approval for future capital projects. Such projects are essential for ensuring that the Dundas facility can continue to operate effectively and meet the demands of the agribusiness supply chain.

144Mr. Ledger stated to the Tribunal that the MECP’s Guideline D-6, outlines how to determine suitable land uses near industrial sites. He stated that the Guideline includes “D-6-1 Industrial Categorization Criteria,” which classifies industrial facilities into Classes I, II, or III. In his opinion, the Dundas facility fits Class III criteria, characterized by noise that can be heard off-property, outside storage of products, substantial production levels, open processing, continuous movement of products and employees, and permitted daily shift operations. Mr. Ledger stated that factors such as frequent truck traffic, a truck weigh scale, industrial fans, pumps, and open wastewater aeration basins further support his opinion on this classification.

145Mr. Ledger testified that based on that opinion of guideline “D-6-3 Separation Distances” mandates a minimum separation of 300 m and a 1000 m influence area for Class III facilities, measured property line to property line. Zeina Homes’ proposed residential development would feature noise-sensitive lots with setbacks of 15 to 60 m from the Dundas facility. This places much of the development within the 300 m minimum separation distance and entirely within the 1000 m influence area.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL

146In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the majority of the contested evidence and expert opinions provided by Zeina Homes. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, and intensifies uses within the rural settlement area.

147While the Tribunal does not accept the notion suggested by Zeina Homes that this proposed development directly addresses the Ontario housing crisis, it is clear that the existing zoning policies established by the RHOP have consistently designated the land for rural residential use. The requests outlined in the ZBA are minor relative to the rights currently granted. After a thorough review of the RHOP and the various official plans from the pre-amalgamation communities, the Tribunal is convinced that both the City and Darling are obligated to have considered the possibility that Zeina homes might develop the Subject Lands. The City has provided evidence that the proposed development would have adverse effects on the Dundas facility and cannot conform to the policies of the PPS. However, there have been numerous opportunities over the decades for the City to address and modify the land uses for these areas. One of Darling's arguments about the existing subdivisions wherein residents have raised concerns highlights the need to have addressed these land uses well before Zeina Homes submitted its applications.

148Darling has demonstrated that it is a responsible corporation by actively engaging with the community. The Tribunal is encouraged by the ongoing efforts that Darling is making at the Dundas facility to improve noise and odour issues. However, the Tribunal emphasizes that there is a buyer-beware aspect to the sale of properties by Zeina Homes. Therefore, it strongly urges Zeina Homes to also act as a responsible corporation by collaborating with Darling to be fully transparent during the sale of homes.

149The Tribunal finds that the proposal is primarily consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS 2024, and conforms with the RHOP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.

INTERIM ORDER

150THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Darling International Canada Inc.’s motion for a site visit is denied.

151THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal to Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z and Zoning By-law No. 05-200 is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [153] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the draft Plan of Subdivision appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [153] below, and the draft Plan of Subdivision set out in Attachment 3 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

152The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

a) The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendments and the draft Plan of Subdivision submitted in their final forms, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City;

153If the parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendments and the draft Plan of Subdivision, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 153 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Wednesday, December 10, 2025, the parties shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft instruments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

154The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the parties , including to address the timelines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

Attachment 1

Attachment 2