Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001564

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

Applicant/Appellant: Telephone City Aggregates Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a 390 unit residential development including detached dwellings and multiple residential dwellings Reference Number: ZBA5/14/MD Property Address: Part of Lots 13-16, Concession 1 Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No: OLT-21-001564 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001564 OLT Case Name: Telephone City Aggregates Inc. v. Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Telephone City Aggregates Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a 390 unit residential development including detached dwellings and multiple residential dwellings Reference Number: PS1/14/MD Property Address: Part of Lots 13-16, Concession 1 Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No: OLT-21-001565 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001564

Heard: August 18, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Telephone City Aggregates Inc. (“Appellant”) Counsel Scott Snider Shelley Kaufman

Parties County of Brant (“County”) Counsel Thomas Sanderson Rochelle Welchman

Parties Laura Shoots (“Party”) Counsel Alex Ciccone

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON AUGUST 18, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was a Hearing to consider a settlement proposal (“Proposal”) regarding the Appellant’s appeals of a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) and of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together, the “Applications”).

2The purpose of the Applications was to facilitate the development of 390 residential units including 274 detached dwellings and 116 multiple residential dwellings (“the proposed development”) on lands municipally known as Part of the William Curtis Grant in the Augustus Jones Tract and part of lot 13, 14, 15, and 16 Concession 1 (Former Township of Brant) Town of Paris, County of Brant, (“Subject Lands” / “Site”) in the County.

3Following the Proposal, consented to by all Parties, a draft DPS with Draft Plan Conditions, and a draft ZBA were provided.

4David Aston, a registered Professional Planner, provided a witness statement dated August 14, 2025, and testimony on behalf of the Appellant in support of the Proposal. Mr. Aston was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The statement was marked as Exhibit 1.

5The Tribunal allows the appeals in part, for the reasons set out below.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

6Mr. Aston gave an overview of the legislative and policy framework in support of the Proposal. He addressed the Participants’ concerns relating to how Curtis Avenue would be utilized during construction and the phased development; traffic and safety matters; risks of environmental damage/sewerage issues; hydro geotechnical, natural heritage and slope stability concerns. He informed the Tribunal that the Appellant’s Proposal had considered each area of concern, and that there were no expected adverse impacts.

7The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and the County of Brant Official Plan (“COP”). Mr. Aston opined that the Proposal, the DPS, the Draft Plan Conditions, and the ZBA represent good land use planning. He recommended approval of the DPS and ZBA.

SITE CONTEXT

8The Subject Lands are in the southeast portion/Sharp Road area within the community of Paris, in the County.

9The Subject Lands are irregularly shaped, approximately 32 hectares (79 acres) in size and are generally bound by the Grand River, existing residential development on Curtis Avenue South, the Trans Canada Trail, and the Primary Urban Settlement Area Boundary.

10The Subject Lands are zoned for aggregate extraction and have been previously subject to licensed aggregate extraction. The portion of the Site to the east of Curtis Avenue South remains licensed for aggregate extraction; however, no aggregate extraction is currently being undertaken. Currently, the lands are under an interim agricultural use. Lands west of Curtis Avenue South are no longer licensed for extraction and have been rehabilitated to an interim agricultural use.

11The Subject Lands are currently accessed via Curtis Avenue South. The Site is well located with respect to the existing arterial road network. The adjacent lands to the east are planned to be developed for employment uses, which will include the extension of Sharp Road, and development of Street ‘A’, which will connect to the Subject Lands and provide the primary access for the proposed development.

12The surrounding land uses in the area include:

1. NORTH: Existing single detached residential development along Curtis Avenue South. Further to the north, Curtis Avenue South intersects with Dundas Street East at a signalized intersection.
2. EAST: The TransCanada Trail (SC Johnson Trail), which runs along a former railway corridor and has a width of approximately 30 metres (“m”). The trail separates the Subject Lands from the planned employment lands. This is a high pedestrian traffic trail within the community, and provides for recreational opportunities and active transportation opportunities, including walking and cycling.
3. WEST: The Grand River and associated valley slope.
4. SOUTH: Agricultural use and an existing single detached dwelling located outside of the Paris Primary Urban Settlement Area Boundary. The Grand River curves from a north-south direction to an east-west direction in this area.

Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment

13The proposed DPS includes the development of an internal road network, including access from Sharp Road and Street ‘A', and the creation of blocks for low-density residential, medium-density residential, future development, open space, parks, stormwater management, and 0.3 m reserves. The broader road network integrates with the lands to the south that are subject to a residential plan of subdivision application.

14The ZBA proposes to rezone the Subject Lands from Resource Extraction (EX) and Natural Heritage (NH), to OS1, OS2, NH, H-R2-44, H-RM1-53, and H-RM3-33 under the County’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Zoning By-law No. 61-16 (“ZBL”) to facilitate development of the lands for a variety of densities.

15Technical studies and addendums were submitted with the applications: Planning Justification Report, Transportation Impact Study, Functional Servicing Report, Noise Impact Study, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Reports, Slope Stability Study and Environmental Impact Study.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

16The Tribunal accepts Mr. Aston’s uncontested opinion evidence. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has proper regard for the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) – in particular, s. 2(h) on the orderly development of communities, and s. 2(p) on the appropriate location of growth and development.

17Further, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.

18The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Aston that the Proposal conforms to the COP.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

19The Proposal is consistent with the policies of section 2.2.1 of the PPS, requiring planning authorities to provide for a range of housing options and densities to meet the projected needs of current and future residents.

20The Proposal will support the creation of complete communities by adding residential uses on lands designated for Residential uses near commercial uses. The proposed DPS will create an additional mix and range of housing, two new public parks and trail connections within the neighbourhood. (PPS s.2.1.6).

21Section 2.3.1.1 of the PPS identifies that Settlement Areas shall be the focus of growth and development. The Site is within a “Settlement Area” with existing available public facilities and service infrastructure. The Site is close to commercial, existing and planned employment uses. The Plan Design considered the siting of parks, trail locations, pedestrian and cycling connections.

22The Proposal can be adequately serviced by municipal services. Blocks are proposed on the DPS for stormwater management facilities and a proposed pumping station. A Holding (“H”) provision in the ZBA and draft plan conditions are provided to ensure that adequate servicing capacity is available for each phase.

23Section 3.2 identifies that transportation systems should be provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and goods, are appropriate to address projected needs, and support the use of zero-and low-emission vehicles.

24Land use compatibility has been considered, and there are no potential adverse effects on the proposed residential uses from the adjacent employment uses. The Subject Lands are designated Residential, and the adjacent lands to the east are designated Employment. There is no change to the land use designations through the Applications. The DPS has considered the location of residential and industrial development and separation distances associated with the proposed land uses.

25The Subject Lands are separated from the designated Employment lands by the TransCanada Trail, which is approximately 30 m in width.

26The lands to the east, are also owned by the Appellant and subject to a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for the adjacent lands will establish site-specific zoning provisions and regulations for the employment uses in consideration of the planned residential uses. The proposed zoning proposes to establish a minimum 10 m open space buffer for the protection of the existing vegetation along the TransCanada Trail.

27An Environmental Impact Study and Addendum were completed to evaluate the natural heritage features to inform the delineation of features, appropriate buffers, zoning and conditions of approval.

28Slope stability studies were done to delineate the appropriate development setback limits. No development is proposed within the natural hazard areas. Natural hazards, natural heritage features and cultural heritage matters have been appropriately considered in the Applications.

29The Applications will contribute to a range and mix of housing options and growth in the County. The proposed development efficiently uses land and infrastructure to support a complete community. The implementing “H” provision in the ZBA will ensure adequate municipal services exist to service the development.

30The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

[Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

31The Applications have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest. The Proposal efficiently uses existing and planned infrastructure, provides for development of safe and healthy communities, and assists in the provision of a range of housing in this area.

32The Subject Lands can be serviced with municipal services. (s.2(f)). The Site is within a Primary Urban Settlement Area, and Designated Greenfield Area, which is an appropriate location of growth and development. (s.2(p)). The proposed development was designed with sidewalks, multi-use trails, and connections to existing trails for active transportation. (s.2(q)).

33The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out at s. 2 of the Act.

[Section 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

34Section 51 (24) sets out criteria relating to health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality, and other matters. The Applications have appropriate regard for all matters in s. 51 (24).

35Section 51(25) of the Act provides for imposition of reasonable conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision.

36In Mr. Aston’s opinion, the Draft Plan Conditions are appropriate for the nature of development of the Subject Lands.

37The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has regard for matters in s.51(24) and the Draft Plan Conditions are reasonable pursuant to s.51(25) of the Act.

County Of Brant Official Plan 2012

38The Applications were submitted in 2013 and have been reviewed against the 2012 Official Plan (“COP 2012”) in effect at the time of submission. The County adopted a new Official Plan (“2024 OP”) on May 30, 2023, which was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on October 18, 2024, with modifications. In Mr. Aston’s review of the new official plan, he opined that the Applications also conform to the 2024 OP.

39The Subject Lands are in Paris, identified by COP 2012 s. 1.11.2.2 as a Primary Urban Settlement Area (“PSA”). Paris is where the greatest concentration of development (including infrastructure systems, and community facilities and services) exists and is planned for new urban development, redevelopment, and intensification.

40An objective of the COP 2012 is to ensure efficient and orderly development occurs in appropriate locations, principally in the County’s PSA in keeping with the capacity of the infrastructure and public service facilities.

41The COP 2012 designates the Site Urban Residential and Natural Heritage System. The Subject Lands are within the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA) and are designated for residential development and planned for growth.

42Section 2.4.2 provides direction on residential development and mix of housing types. The Proposal will support a complete community, with housing such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units.

43Section 2.2.2.3 establishes the minimum density target in the DGA of 40 residents and jobs combined per hectare by 2022. The Proposal will assist the County in achieving this minimum density target.

44The Proposal will result in different residential types and densities, with parks, open space and infrastructure uses in keeping with the intent and function of the PSA.

45The Site can be adequately serviced by municipal services, and an “H” provision in the ZBA will ensure adequate capacity is available based on phasing.

46Mr. Aston explained that two public parks are proposed within the plan of subdivision to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement and provide a total of 1.622 hectares of public parkland. Connections to these park areas are provided through the design of streets and sidewalks with the plan of subdivision and future design of the second phase road connection. Public walkways and a proposed multi-use path connection along Street ‘A’ provide linkages to the existing Trans-Canada Trail and other trails and the proposed public parks.

47Section 3.4.1 states that the intent of the Urban Residential designation is to accommodate safe and well-designed neighbourhoods and to contribute to the creation of complete communities. Section 3.4.2 identifies that the predominant use of land in the Urban Residential designation shall be for a variety of residential housing types. Section 3.4.3 identifies that new development shall be subject to a series of criteria. Mr. Aston opined that these criteria have been satisfied where the density, height and character of the proposed development project shall be compatible with existing adjacent uses.

48The proposed development, Mr. Aston noted, will be predominantly low-rise in nature (singles, semis and townhouses), and thus compatible with the existing low-density residential development on Curtis Avenue South. Medium density development will be sited appropriately within the proposed subdivision.

49Consideration has been given to the compatibility of the subdivision relative to adjacent proposed employment uses. There is separation provided between the proposed developments because of the TransCanada Trail, (approximately 30m in width).

50The proposed development has a proposed density of approximately 25 units per net hectare in low and medium density forms and supports the low/ medium density targets in the COP 2012.

51Mr. Aston stated that the height and massing of the buildings at the edge of the proposed development will have regard to the height and massing of the buildings in adjacent areas and may be subject to additional setbacks and design elements, or landscaping to provide an appropriate transition. Multiple residential (e.g. townhouses or apartments) are located internal to the subdivision, or adjacent to natural features i.e.) the Grand River.

52The Neighbourhood Park has been located central to the plan, with frontage on Street ‘A’ and Street ‘B’ and in proximity to the Open Space network and multi-use trails and walkways. The location and design allow the park to serve as a neighbourhood feature and amenity, with a size capable of accommodating a range of features (passive and active areas). A smaller park block has been provided immediately adjacent to the TransCanada Trail and Open Space network to provide the opportunity for development of a trailhead, therefore adding an amenity to both the local community and community at large.

53The Subject Lands are not identified as a Heritage Area on Schedule A. A portion of the subject lands is designated Natural Heritage System – Woodlands and Vegetation on schedule C-1 of the COP 2012. A portion is also designated hazardous because of the location in proximity to the Grand River and tributary. The areas identified as Natural Heritage, are largely intended to be protected and preserved in their natural state to avoid direct impacts on these features.

54The proposed development has been designed to provide for the protection of the Natural Heritage System and existing natural heritage features. Natural heritage features are generally proposed to be maintained with appropriate setbacks and buffers and within the established slope stability limits as shown on the DPS and implementing ZBA.

55Mr. Aston stressed that in locations where infrastructure is proposed within the natural heritage system, the Environmental Impact Study has concluded that there will be no adverse impacts with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures through conditions of draft plan approval.

56Various slope stability studies have been completed to assess the natural hazards and delineate the appropriate development setback limits as shown on the DPS. No development is proposed within the natural hazard areas, including slopes or floodplain.

57The County has completed a Paris Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Master Servicing Plan (“PMSP”) which provides direction on how to efficiently provide long-term servicing strategies for water and wastewater servicing and stormwater drainage service to the full buildout of the Paris Settlement Area. The PMSP has been considered in the design of the proposed servicing scheme.

58The “H” provision is included in the ZBA, along with draft plan conditions to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity based on phasing and in accordance with the OP and the County’s Allocation Policy.

59The existing portion of Curtis Ave is identified as a rural local road and a municipal right of way between the two parcels of the Subject Lands. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and Addendum were completed for the Proposed Applications which identified that the existing and proposed road network is adequate for the development.

60The draft plan conditions require updates to the TIS on a per-phase basis to ensure that the road network is operating at acceptable levels of service. The Applications provide for adequate sidewalk and multi-use path connections, including to the Trans-Canada trail to encourage active transportation. Mr. Aston’s overall opinion was that the Applications conform to the COP.

61The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the COP 2012.

Zoning By-law No.61-16

62The Site is currently zoned Resource Extraction (EX) and Natural Heritage (NH) in the ZBL. The existing zoning does not permit the proposed residential or park and open space uses and therefore, a ZBA is required.

63The ZBA proposes to change the zoning on the Lands from Agricultural Zone (A) to a mix of Residential Zones, Open Space and Natural Heritage. The Residential Zones have a number of site-specific provisions and are subject to a holding (“H”) provision that ensures adequate servicing capacity prior to development.

64Site-specific provisions include regulations associated with minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage, landscape open space and parking requirements.

65The ZBA zones land in accordance with the land use designations and policies of the COP and further establishes regulations to control the use of land and the character, location, and use of buildings and structures on the Subject Lands.

66The ZBA is appropriate for the residential development of the Subject Lands. All the setbacks and other zone provisions can be adhered to in the final design of the site in accordance with the proposed Plan of Subdivision.

67Mr. Aston opined that the proposed zoning regulations implement the COP and are appropriate for the proposed development.

CONCLUSION

68The proposed development is a phased development. The Appellant had undertaken all necessary technical studies to support the Applications and the Proposal. No development will occur in natural hazard areas and the Appellant’s proposed development will result in a complete community. The Proposal takes advantage of the existing and planned municipal infrastructure and municipal services. Traffic and safety concerns along Curtis Avenue will be mitigated as the access to the Site from Curtis Avenue is relegated to emergency access only. The proposed internal roads network at Site will carry the traffic and transportation load in the proposed development. No adverse effect is expected to impact adjacent properties. Additionally, the Proposal will support the County’s intensification and growth targets. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is good planning and in the public interest.

69Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal, the DPS, the Draft Plan Conditions, and the ZBA represent good planning, have regard for the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and matters in s. 51(24) of the Act, are consistent with the PPS and conform to the COP.

70The Tribunal grants the appeals in part, and approves the DPS, Draft Plan Conditions and the ZBA.

ORDER

71THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed in part, and that:

1. the County of Brant Zoning By-law No. 61-16 is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the Municipal clerk to assign a number to this By-law for record-keeping purposes.

2. the Draft Plan shown on the plan prepared by MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Inc. dated June 24, 2025 comprising Part of the William Curtis Grant in the Augustus Jones Tract and part of lot 13, 14, 15 and 16 Concession 1 (Former Township of Brant) Town of Paris, County of Brant (set out in Attachment 2) is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.

3. Pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Brant shall have the authority to clear the conditions of Draft Plan approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act.

4. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of Draft Plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the Draft Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“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.

ATTACHMENT 2