Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
September 17, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000243
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Sifton Properties Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit development for residential use
Reference Number:
OP 16-08-6
Property Address:
West side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll
Municipality:
Oxford
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Case Name:
Sifton Properties Limited v. Oxford (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Sifton Properties Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit development for residential use
Reference Number:
OP 16-12-6
Property Address:
West side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll
Municipality:
Oxford
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000244
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Case Name:
Sifton Properties Limited v. Oxford (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Sifton Properties Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit development for residential use
Reference Number:
ZN 6-16-09
Property Address:
West side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll
Municipality:
Oxford
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000245
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Case Name:
Sifton Properties Limited v. Oxford (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Sifton Properties Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit development for residential use
Reference Number:
ZN 6-16-12
Property Address:
West side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll
Municipality:
Oxford
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000246
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Case Name:
Sifton Properties Limited v. Oxford (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Sifton Properties Limited
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit development for residential use
Reference Number:
SB 16-04-6
Property Address:
West side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll
Municipality:
Oxford
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000247
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000243
OLT Case Name:
Sifton Properties Limited v. Oxford (County)
Heard:
May 26-30, 2025, by Video Hearing, written submissions received on June 30, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sifton Properties Limited (“Appellant/Sifton”)
Andrea Skinner
Town of Ingersoll (“Town”)
Peter Pickfield
County of Oxford (“County”)
Peter Pickfield
Huron Grain Processing Inc. (“Huron Grain”)
Laura McFalls
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. Andrews AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
The Harrisview Subdivision
1This matter deals with a portion of what is known as the “Harrisview” subdivision. Harrisview was originally subject to Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) approval, as well as supportive Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) approval, in late 2006 to early 2007, under the ownership of County Contracting of Wheatley Inc.
2The Harrisview lands were subsequently purchased by the Appellant, Sifton, in February 2008, which has since requested and obtained planning approval for a number of revisions to the DPS. Sifton has been registering and developing Harrisview in various stages (i.e., Phase 1 to Phase 4) for low-density, single-detached dwellings, and medium-density townhouse dwellings.
3The Planning Act applications currently before the Tribunal relate to two development phases of Harrisview known as “Phase 5” and “Block 65”.
Phase 5
4In 2016, Sifton submitted OPA, ZBA, and DPS applications to permit single-detached dwellings on the Phase 5 lands.
5In February 2024, the Phase 5 applications were appealed to the Tribunal for non-decisions (the “Phase 5 Appeals”).
6Over the years, multiple resubmissions have been provided to the Town and County (collectively, the “Municipalities”). The latest resubmission (in November 2024) provides for 35 street-fronting, single-detached dwelling lots along an extension of Sutherland Crescent.
Block 65
7In 2016, Sifton submitted OPA and ZBA applications to permit a long-term care facility and/or residential apartment uses on the Block 65 lands.
8In November 2021, Sifton filed a consent application to permit a lot line adjustment to increase the size of Block 65. The consent application was approved by the County but was appealed to the Tribunal by Huron Grain on June 2, 2022 (case no. OLT-22-003944).
9In February 2024, the balance of the Block 65 Applications was appealed to the Tribunal for non-decisions (the “Block 65 Appeals”).
10The Block 65 Applications were also subject of various resubmissions over the years, the latest of which was in November 2024.
11The current Block 65 proposal contemplates two six-storey residential apartment buildings (120 apartment dwelling units total) and 13 street-fronting townhouse dwelling units on the property.
12The proposed planning instruments for Block 65 are also intended to provide flexibility to enable the development of a six-storey long-term care facility (instead of one of the two residential apartment buildings), with the final determination on uses to be confirmed at the site plan approval stage.
Part I: SETTLEMENT
Full Settlement of Phase 5 Appeals and Partial Settlement of Block 65 Appeals; Parking Issue Remains
13In the time leading up to the present Hearing, the Parties engaged in Tribunal-led mediation. As a result, Sifton and the Municipalities reached a full settlement with respect to the Phase 5 Appeals, and a partial settlement with respect to the Block 65 Appeals. Further, Huron Grain confirms that it does not object to the settlements and has withdrawn its appeal of the consent approval related to Block 65.
14The only remaining issues between Sifton and the Municipalities involve the parking rate for the two proposed six-storey, 120-unit residential apartment buildings proposed for Block 65.
Settlement Evidence and Submissions
15In assessing the proposed settlement, the Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following evidence, materials, and submissions:
Minutes of Settlement, executed May 22, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1);
Joint Document Book of the Parties (vols. 1-5; marked as Exhibits 1a-1e);
Witness Statements (contained within the Parties’ respective Compendiums of Witness Statements, marked as Exhibit 4 (Sifton) and Exhibit 6 (Municipalities)) in the names of:
Jay McGuffin (“Mr. McGuffin”) (Sifton; expert in Land Use Planning);
Ian Matthew (Sifton; expert in Acoustics);
Heather St. Clair (Municipalities; expert in Land Use Planning);
Uncontested viva voce opinion evidence provided by Mr. McGuffin; and
Draft Order jointly submitted to give effect to the settlement-relief sought.
Settlement Analysis
16The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned evidence of Mr. McGuffin reflects revisions to the applicable applications before the Tribunal that were reached through mediation and the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
17The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. McGuffin (which was confirmed, under oath, as accurately described in his witness statement) and finds that the subject applications, as revised, have regard to matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conform to the County Official Plan (as applicable), and represent good planning in the public interest. The Tribunal further accepts Mr. McGuffin’s opinion and finds that the proposed DPS for Phase 5 has appropriate regard for the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
18Upon these findings, the Tribunal approves the draft instruments that are subject to the settlement, as set out in the Order below.
PART II: CONTESTED Parking Issues
Positions of the Parties
19As stated, the remaining issue between the Parties is about the appropriate parking rate for the two apartment buildings proposed to be located on Block 65. The related ZBA (as proposed by Sifton) facilitates a lower parking rate than what the Municipalities are willing to accept.
20Figure 1 (below) illustrates the parking rate that was initially proposed by Sifton as part of its ZBA application, as well as what was proposed by Sifton at the commencement of the present Hearing (allowing for a slightly higher rate than what was originally proposed), and what Sifton proposes as of the end of the Hearing (which introduced “Flex” spaces to be used for either resident or visitor parking). The chart further compares these numbers to what the Municipalities are offering and what the Town’s current Zoning By-law requires.
Sifton’s ZBA Application
Sifton – at start of Hearing
Sifton – at end of Hearing
Municipalities’ proposal
Town’s current ZBL
Overall Rate
1.14
1.19
1.19
1.425
1.71
Resident Spaces
1.0/unit 120
1.04/unit 125
1.0/unit 120
1.25/unit 150
1.5/unit 180
Accessible (3% of resident + 1)
5
5
5
6
7
Visitor (0.1 per resident space)
12
13
12
15
18
“Flex” spaces (resident or visitor space)
6
Total
137
143
143
171
205
Figure 1: Parking Rate Chart
21The Tribunal notes that the six “Flex” spaces now being proposed by Sifton were carved out of the previously proposed 125 resident spaces (now 120) and one from the previously proposed 13 visitor spaces (now 12). This change arises following the hearing of the evidence, which demonstrated that the allotment of at least six spaces as “Flex” spaces may be beneficial, depending on eventual demand for resident and/or visitor spaces. For example, if demand for resident spaces does not exceed 120 spaces, the ZBA would allow for up to 18 visitor spaces instead of the originally proposed 13.
22The key aspect of Sifton’s arguments is the notion that it is equally poor planning to require more parking than what is necessary, as it is to provide not enough parking. Sifton contends that the rate being proposed by the Municipalities will result in a loss of 20 units of residential housing to accommodate the area needed for additional parking. This reduction in housing units, they continue, is undesirable because it makes inefficient use of both the available developable land and public infrastructure. Sifton also submits that unused parking blacktop will increase storm water run-off, heat emissions, and salt usage in the winter months. Lastly, Sifton claims that unnecessary parking areas will result in additional maintenance costs that must be borne by the buildings’ residents.
23The Municipalities’ counter-position is that a shortfall in parking spaces will have an unacceptable negative impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and municipal operations. They contend that, if there is a shortfall, car-owners will inevitably park off-site and cause conflicts with neighbours. They further expect that off-site parking will negatively affect municipal operations because it will increase the need for parking enforcement and interfere with snow-removal on public streets.
24Upon hearing these submissions, the Tribunal finds that neither side generally disagrees with the other side’s points, insofar as it would be problematic if either a serious excess or shortfall of parking materializes through the function of the subject ZBA. This finding is supported by the Parties’ respective planning experts, who both confirmed that their planning opinions and satisfaction of the corresponding statutory tests depend upon the Tribunal’s ultimate determination of the optimal parking rate. The Tribunal finds the same, which means that the case turns entirely on determining this finding of fact.
Optimal Parking Rate
Car-dependency of the Site
25Central to both side’s positions is an assessment of the site’s car-dependency. From the evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that two factors principally determine a site’s car-dependency (or mitigation thereof): (1) walkability (being a radius of 800 metres from the subject site) and bikeability to amenities and employment areas, and (2) availability of public transportation. The Tribunal finds that taxi and ride-sharing services also play a limited role.
26Looking first at the presence of public transportation, there is no dispute that Ingersoll lacks any meaningful local public transportation. Without such services, the Tribunal finds that the measure of the subject site’s car-dependency is a measure of it walkability and bikeability.
27Regarding walkability and bikeability, the Tribunal heard and accepts evidence demonstrating that the site is within close walking distance to existing or planned grocery shopping, limited other retail shopping, some restaurants, schools, and recreation. However, amenities such as specific retail shopping, hair-cutting, insurance and banking services, health care offices, and entertainment (i.e., what is found within the Town’s downtown area) are within biking distance but not a typical walking distance.
28The evidence also shows that in-person employment opportunities within a walkable distance of the site are limited but again within a bikeable distance. Additionally, the Tribunal finds (as a matter of judicial notice) that at least some work-from-home opportunities exist in Ingersoll like most of Ontario.
29The Tribunal further heard and accepts evidence demonstrating that taxi services are available in Ingersoll, but not ride-sharing services.
30In coming to these factual conclusions, the Tribunal accepts that each adult resident of the proposed apartment buildings will not necessarily need their own vehicle to access all of their daily needs. However, residents will periodically need vehicular transportation to access at least some goods and/or services from outside a walkable and/or bikeable distance. The Tribunal finds that such vehicular transportation could be provided by a resident’s own vehicle, a taxi, or a friend or family member’s vehicle.
31Given these options, the Tribunal finds that, more likely than not, the occupant(s) of some units will solve their vehicular transportation needs without needing their own vehicle and corresponding parking space, while other occupants may need more than one automobile. What does this mean in terms of determining the optimum parking rate for the site? The Tribunal finds that it needs further information from the respective experts to make this determination.
The Parking Justification Study
32Sifton called Matt Brouwer as an expert in Transportation and Traffic, including Parking. He undertook a parking study (“Parking Study” / “Study”) and authored the related report that was central to the evidence of both parties. He testified that the parking rates proposed by Sifton, as derived from the Study, represent the best estimate of the optimum parking rate for the site.
33For the Municipalities, Henry Centen also testified as a duly qualified expert in Transportation and Traffic, including Parking. The essence of Mr. Centen’s testimony was to critique Mr. Brouwer’s Parking Study and conclusions, opining that the Study fails to adequately demonstrate that a lower parking rate is desirable.
34The key parts of the Parking Study that were highlighted include the following:
Review of Zoning By-law Parking Requirements in other Municipalities;
Review of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Parking Generation Manual (“ITE Manual”);
Review of the Transportation Tomorrow Survey;
County Transportation Master Plan; and
Estimates of Parking Demand based on Proxy Site Surveys.
35Of note, the Municipalities main critiques/concerns of the Parking Study involve:
Limited/misrepresentative time-periods used to conduct the surveys;
A failure to assess visitor parking demand specifically;
Reliance on the Transportation for Tomorrow Survey;
The weight placed on the ITE Manual; and
A failure to assess the risk of spillover effects at the subject site.
1. Parking Rate Requirements in other Municipalities
36Table 4.2 of the Parking Study purports to show recently updated parking by-law requirements for apartment dwellings in nearby municipalities. Included were Stratford (min. 1.0 spaces/unit), Aylmer (min. 1.0 spaces/unit), Strathroy-Caradoc (min. 1.25 spaces/unit), Huron East (min. 1.0 spaces/unit) and Chatham-Kent (min. 1.25 spaces/unit).
37The Tribunal notes that both experts testified that these comparative rates are of limited value to the determinations at hand because there are countless contextual differences between Ingersoll and the listed municipalities. The same can be said about the examples provided by Mr. Centen at Appendix 3 of his witness statement, which show higher prescribed parking rates in other municipalities. The Tribunal comes to the same conclusion and gives little weight to this evidence.
2. ITE Parking Generation Manual
38The ITE Manual provides data on surveys across the USA and Canada regarding peak parking demand of apartment buildings, among other uses. At table 4.3 of the Parking Study, it references the ITE Manual that indicates a peak parking demand for apartment buildings of 1.23 spaces/unit on average through the week, 1.45 spaces/unit at the 85th percentile, and 1.04 spaces/unit on average on a Saturday (all of which includes both resident and visitor spaces).
39Mr. Brouwer testified that these rates involve survey sites where there is a near total dependency on personal automobiles for transportation. Upon this basis, he opined that a rate near the average (1.23 spaces/unit) would be a conservative estimate when considering the context of the subject site (where some amenities are walkable, and most are bikeable). Mr. Centen, meanwhile, opined that the appropriate parking rate for the subject site should be in line with the 85th percentile to ensure that there is little or no chance for undesirable spillover effects from a lack of parking.
40Similar to the critique/concern expressed by the Municipalities, the Tribunal finds the value of the ITE Manual information to be limited by its lack of specific context. However, the Tribunal nevertheless provides it some weight, given that both experts expressed reliance on the data in forming their opinions. In this regard, the Tribunal prefers Mr. Brouwer’s opinion because it has already found that the subject site is not totally car-dependant. The Tribunal therefore finds that it makes sense that the average peak rate, stated in the ITE Manual for an almost totally car-dependant apartment building (1.23 spaces/unit), is a conservative rate for the subject site. The Tribunal further finds that the optimum rate is, more likely than not, lower due to the subject site’s relative walkability and bikeability.
3. Transportation Tomorrow Survey
41The Transportation Tomorrow Survey is a household travel survey conducted within the Greater Golden Horseshoe by the Data Management Group at the University of Toronto. It purports to provide data related to, among other things, the number of vehicles owned by private households in various municipalities in 2022. Notably, as pointed out by the Municipalities, Ingersoll did not participate in the survey.
42Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the survey illustrates a general trend of decreased automobile ownership in the area, which also likely applies to Ingersoll. Otherwise, the Tribunal finds that the survey provides very little direction to assess the optimum parking rate of the site.
4. County Transportation Master Plan
43The Parking Study also makes reference to the County Transportation Master Plan, updated in 2024, which assesses existing and future transportation conditions in the community and aims to reduce single occupant vehicle trips through transit, active transportation, carpooling, and work-from-home. The Tribunal finds that, while this information again helps demonstrates that vehicle-ownership trends are tracking lower, it also provides very little direction in terms of determining the optimum parking rate for the site.
5. Proxy Sites
44The Tribunal finds that data collected from proxy site studies has the potential to be much more informative. The value of such evidence, however, is dependent on the comparative context of the selected proxy sites.
45The Parking Study provides data collected from five proxy sites at:
285 Thames Street North, Ingersoll;
263, 265 and 267 Butler Street, Lucan;
17 and 19 Barker Street, Paris;
536, 550 and 554 Irvings Drive, Port Elgin; and
764 and 780 Waterloo Street, Port Elgin.
46The Tribunal notes that the time-period used to collect data was from 11 a.m. on Monday, March 17, 2025 to 7 a.m. on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 (for the Ingersoll, Lucan and Paris sites) and between 12 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, 2025 to 7 a.m. on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 (for the Port Elgin sites).
47Observations at the proxy sites illustrate peak parking demands as follows:
285 Thames Street North, Ingersoll – 0.80 vehicles/unit
263, 265 and 267 Butler Street, Lucan – 0.99 vehicles/unit
17 and 19 Barker Street, Paris – 0.94 vehicles/unit
536, 550 and 554 Irvings Drive, Port Elgin – 0.88 vehicles/unit
764 and 780 Waterloo Street, Port Elgin – 0.67 vehicles/unit
48Taken at face value, the Tribunal finds that these numbers conservatively support Sifton’s proposed parking rate of 1.19 spaces/unit. However, as pointed out by the Municipalities, there is more to consider.
49For example, the observations all took place on a single weekday, so the Tribunal has no information to consider regarding peaks that might occur on a Friday evening, weekends, or any other time when there might be more visitors attending the sites. Additionally, the Tribunal understands that Paris and Port Elgin have limited public transit, which provides a reduction in car-dependency and therefore skews the results. Additionally, the Port Elgin proxy sites are either within or extremely close to the downtown core of the Town, making them less comparable from a walkability standpoint. The Lucan site, meanwhile, is very close to two public parking areas, meaning that some visitors to that site could realistically park off-site and not be counted as part of the Study.
50Generally, the Tribunal finds that these characteristics undermine the comparability of these sites. While the Study results showed that none of the sites demonstrated a parking demand over 1.0 vehicles/unit, the Tribunal accepts the Municipalities’ submissions insofar as the value of this data is limited because the context is not sufficiently similar.
51By contrast, the Tribunal finds that the Ingersoll proxy site is sufficiently comparable to serve as an adequate predictor for the parking needs of the subject site. While the Tribunal recognizes that there are differences, it also recognizes that no site is going to be absolutely perfect, and fairness requires that the Tribunal consider the best comparator available.
52Beginning with the obvious, the Ingersoll proxy site is similar because it is found within the same town as the subject site. Additionally, while the proxy site is roughly one kilometer closer to the downtown area compared to the subject site, this difference is offset by the fact that the subject site is immediately adjacent to other commercial uses, including a grocery store and some restaurants, unlike the proxy site. The evidence further shows that, while the proxy site has a higher walk score than the subject site, the subject site has a higher bike score, which the Tribunal finds is another offsetting consideration. The Tribunal notes that, while walkability and bikeability of the two sites is different, both fall into the same categorical range, being: “car-dependant” from a walkability standpoint and “somewhat bikeable” from a bikeability standpoint.
53The evidence additionally shows that the two sites are similar in the sense that parking spaces are “unbundled” from the housing units. This means that the cost of parking is not included with housing rent. All of the witnesses recognize that this translates into lower demand for parking.
54The Tribunal acknowledges the Municipalities’ contention that the subject site’s proximity to the 401 will attract vehicle-commuters. However, the Tribunal finds that the subject site’s proximity to this major highway is not substantially different from the proxy site (or the whole of Ingersoll, for that matter), when considering the relative distance by car. Consequently, the Tribunal finds this fact to be immaterial.
55Having come to these conclusions, the Tribunal finds it reasonable and appropriate to use the 0.80 vehicle/unit measure from the Ingersoll proxy site as the best predictor to forecast the optimum parking needs of the subject site. Given that Sifton is proposing a parking rate of 1.19 for the subject site, which is almost 50% greater than the measured peak rate of the proxy site, the Tribunal further finds that the proposed rate is a conservative rate which can potentially accommodate greater demands that may occur on other days of the week (thus addressing the Municipalities’ concern about the timing of the proxy site’s observations).
56Furthermore, given the conclusion that the proposed parking rate provides enough parking on-site, the Tribunal finds that the Municipalities’ concerns about spill-over effects are inconsequential. At the same time, if there is some spill-over parking on nearby streets, the Tribunal finds that it is unlikely to be considerable or intolerable, and such circumstances therefore do not justify increasing the amount of on-site parking ‘just to be safe’. The Tribunal further finds that if there is any spill-over parking onto nearby commercial properties, this is a private civil concern, not a public planning concern for this Tribunal to moderate.
57In coming to these conclusions, the Tribunal notes that Mr. Brouwer’s evidence was compelling and straightforward. The Tribunal further observed that his Parking Study was conducted without him being capable of predicting the results, and there is no indication that any information was omitted in favour of a specific result. This, the Tribunal finds, provides a high degree of credibility to his findings.
58By contrast, the Municipalities’ case exhibits signs of tailoring. For starters, the evidence shows that the Municipalities were initially in agreement with the selection of the Lucan, Paris, and Ingersoll sites, but then raised concerns about the appropriateness of the sites after the results were in. Further, Mr. Centen repeatedly characterized his support for the Municipalities’ position as him “being comfortable with” their proposed rate, as opposed to it being necessary or optimal. This indicates that he was proffering opinions that would err on the side of caution, prioritizing the Town’s interests concerning parking enforcement, conflicts with neighbours, and snow removal, above determining the optimum parking rate. This, the Tribunal finds, signifies a degree of investment in the Municipalities’ concerns above his role as an impartial witness.
Parking Rate Conclusion
59Given the Tribunal’s factual findings set out above, together with the Tribunal’s preference for Mr. Brouwers evidence, the Tribunal accepts Sifton’s proposed parking rate as being the optimum rate for the site. To review, this rate is as follows:
minimum 1.19 spaces/unit overall;
minimum 1.0 spaces/unit for residents;
minimum 0.1 visitor spaces/resident spaces; and
minimum 0.03 accessible spaces/residential spaces, plus one (1) additional accessible space.
60The Tribunal notes that such a rate will result in requiring a total of 143 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed 120-unit apartment buildings, with a minimum of 120 spaces being dedicated for residents, 12 spaces for visitors, five accessible spaces, and six “Flex” spaces that can be designated as either resident or visitor spaces.
61The Tribunal emphasizes that the addition of the “Flex” parking spaces will serve a critical function insofar as it provides flexibility to potentially accommodate more visitor parking spaces than what would normally be required as a ratio between resident and visitor parking spaces. This, the Tribunal finds, should mitigate visitor-parking supply issues, if it materializes on the subject site.
ORDER
The Phase 5 Lands
62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
- Regarding certain appeals concerning the lands known as the “Phase 5 Lands” (legally described as Part of Lot 19, Concession 1 (West Oxford) in the Town of Ingersoll), the appeals are allowed in part and the following instruments are approved:
a. the Official Plan Amendment attached as Attachment 1;
b. the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment 2;
c. the draft plan of subdivision attached as Attachment 3, subject to the conditions attached as Attachment 4; and
- Pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County 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 Planning Act. 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.
The Block 65 Lands
63AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that, regarding certain appeals concerning the lands known as the “Block 65 Lands” (located on the west side of Hollingshead Rd., north of Clarke Rd. East, legally described as Block 65 and Part Block 66, Registered Plan 41M-309 in the Town of Ingersoll), the appeals are allowed in part and the following instruments are approved:
the Official Plan Amendment attached as Attachment 5; and
the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment 6.
64The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that there are difficulties implementing the Tribunal’s Order.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6