Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000279

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

Appellant: River Mill Development Corporation

Subject: Conditions of approval of the draft plan of subdivision

Description: To facilitate the development of a mixed-use residential community.

Reference Number: 30T-21101

Property Address: 1285 and 1455 Speedsville Road and parts of 800 Briardean Road

Municipality: Cambridge

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000279

OLT Case Name: River Mill Development Corporation v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: River Mill Development Corporation

Motion for: Directions

Heard: January 29, 2026 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

River Mill Development Corporation (“Appellant”)

Joel Farber Shane Gould

City of Cambridge (“City”)

Nicole Auty

DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG 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 appeal under s. 51(39) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to the Draft Plan Approval Conditions (“DPAC”) imposed by the City.

2This appeal relates to lands municipally known as 1285 and 1455 Speedsville Road and parts of 800 Briardean Road (“Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are legally described as Part of Lots 9, 10 & 11, Concession 1, Beasley's Lower Block, in the City, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Region”), and are located on the east side of Speedsville Road, south of Maple Grove Road.

3On or about November 27, 2020, the Appellant filed applications proposing amendments to the City Official Plan (2012) (“COP”) and Zoning By-law No. 150-85 (“ZBL”) to facilitate the further development of 1455 Speedsville Road and designate and zone the newly acquired lands, being the Subject Lands. A draft plan of subdivision (“DPS”), bearing application number 30T-21101, was included with these applications and is the subject matter of this appeal.

4Following revisions by the Appellant, the DPS consisted of roughly 30 blocks to enable the development of roughly 1,706 – 2,045 residential units, which included natural open space systems, a public park, and a school block.

5On or about October 8, 2024, the Council of the City considered the applications and adopted the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning by-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) (City File OR 08/20). The OPA and ZBA are now in full force and effect to permit development of the Subject Lands.

6On or about March 12, 2025, the Mayor, on behalf of the City, approved the DPS and Conditions of Draft Plan Approval (the "DPA"). The DPA contained a condition which required the Appellant to pay the amount of $500.00 per residential unit as a contribution toward the City's Affordable Housing Contribution Fund, or alternatively, enter into an agreement with the City to provide 20 affordable housing units, as defined by the COP, for a specified period of time ("Condition 11").

7On or about March 14, 2025, the City provided a Notice of Decision for Draft Approval – Plan of Subdivision, which included Condition 11 as a requirement for the approval of the Plan of Subdivision.

8On or about March 27, 2025, the Appellant appealed Condition 11 and Condition 108 (being the lapsing condition which requires the Plan of Subdivision to be registered within three years of the date of the DPA) to the Tribunal.

9The Appellant and the City have agreed to resolve the appeal. The Parties have agreed to amend Condition 11 and Condition 108 of the DPA, as follows:

Original Condition:

11. THAT prior to the registration of the plan, the Owner/Developer shall make a contribution to the City of Cambridge Affordable Housing Contribution Fund for each residential unit developed with the plan. The contribution will be paid and set in accordance with the following:

a. The affordable housing contribution shall be $500 per residential unit, regardless of the unit type, and shall not be subject to indexing or any other increase;

b. The affordable housing contribution is payable for each residential unit in the plan, and shall be collected by the City prior to the registration of the plan;

c. The affordable housing contribution shall not be payable in respect of additional residential units within a single detached, semi- detached or townhouse dwelling or in respect to any non- residential development;

d. The affordable housing contributions paid by the Owner/Developer will be used by the City toward the capital costs of a planned affordable housing project that is otherwise fully funded and approved, and may be given by the City to a not-for-profit affordable housing contribution for that purpose or used by the City of acquire land to be conveyed to such a corporation for that purpose; and,

e. The payment of the affordable housing contribution by the Owner/Developer pursuant to this condition shall be in full satisfaction of any and all requirements respecting the contribution to or provision of affordable or social housing in respect of the development of the lands within the plan.

Alternatively, the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Cambridge and/or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide 20 affordable housing units (as defined within the Regional Official Plan) for a specified period of time, within one of the high and medium density residential or mixed use blocks in the plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge.

Revised Condition:

11. THAT prior to the registration of the plan, the Owner/Developer enters into a registered development agreement with the City of Cambridge to provide 20 affordable rental units in Phase 3C, municipally addressed as 135 Equestrian Way to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge. The affordable rental units shall be subject to the following:

a. The initial base rent for the affordable rental units shall be an amount no greater than the lesser of:

i. The income-based affordable rent for the residential unit for the City of Cambridge set out in the Affordable Residential Units bulletin in accordance with subsection 4.1(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (the “DC Act”); and,

ii. The average market rent identified for the residential unit for the City of Cambridge set out in the Affordable Residential Units bulletin.

b. The affordable units shall be leased to tenant(s) at an arm’s length to the landlord in accordance with the DC Act.

c. The affordability period for the affordable rental units shall be 25 years commencing upon the first occupancy of the affordable rental unit.

Original Condition:

108. THAT the plan of subdivision shall be registered within three (3) years of the date of Draft Plan Approval.

Revised Condition:

108. THAT the entire plan of subdivision shall be registered within five (5) years of the date of Draft Plan Approval.

10The Parties have also agreed to request that the Tribunal withhold its decision with respect to the appeal until an Affordable Rental Housing Agreement (“ARHA”) is registered on title to the Phase 3C lands. The Appellant further agreed that the ARHA would be in a form satisfactory to the City and would include the terms set out in the Revised Condition 11.

11Each Party agrees to be responsible for its own costs, and no Party shall seek costs from the Tribunal for this appeal.

12In the Motion, the reliefs requested are as follow:

1. An Order allowing the Applicant's appeal pursuant to section 51(39) of the Planning Act, as amended, in part;

2. An Order approving the amendments to the Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, with respect to the lands municipally known as 1285 and 1455 Speedsville Road and parts of 800 Briardean Road (the “Subject Lands”), as outlined in Schedule “A’ to this Notice of Motion.

3. Such further and other relief as counsel for the Applicant may request and the Tribunal may permit.

13Edward John, a Registered Professional Planner, provided an affidavit sworn on January 19, 2026, on behalf of the Appellant, in support of the Proposal. The affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1.

14The Tribunal allows the Motion and the appeal, in part, for the reasons set out below.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

15Mr. John gave an overview of the legislative and policy framework in support of the Proposal. The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), the Region Official Plan (“ROP”) and the COP. Mr. John opined that the Proposal, the DPS, and amended DPAC represent good land use planning. He recommended approval of the amended DPAC.

SITE CONTEXT

16The Subject Lands are approximately 45.38 hectares (“ha”) (112.14 acres) in size, with 626.61 metres (“m”) (2,055 feet (“ft”)) of frontage along Speedsville Road and 680 m (2,230 ft) of frontage along Maple Grove Road.

17The Subject Lands are bordered by Maple Grove Road to the north, Equestrian Way to the south, Briardean Road to the east, and Speedsville Road to the west.

18The lands north of Maple Grove Road comprise agricultural lands and natural heritage features associated with Middle Creek and East Creek Core Environmental Features, as well as a daycare facility directly north of Maple Grove Road.

19The lands south of Equestrian Way are currently vacant of buildings and structures but have been approved for high density residential/mixed uses.

20There is an existing residential development east of the Subject Lands and an industrial subdivision to the west of the Subject Lands.

21The majority of the Subject Lands, in particular 1455 Speedsville Road, were subject to an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 8”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA 213-15”) as well as Plan of Subdivision Applications 30T-21101, 30T-12103, and 30T-12104. These approvals were for a variety of residential and commercial land uses.

22The DPS included: (1) the addition of a 2.41 ha school block to be conveyed to the Waterloo Catholic District School Board; (2) an increase in the size of a park to be conveyed to the City from 0.51 ha to 1.98 ha; and (3) a modified road network, including the addition of trails and bike lanes.

23The DPS consisted of 30 blocks, comprising roughly 1,706 – 2,045 residential units, which included natural open space systems, a public park, and a school block.

24Phase 3C of the River Mill Community consists of the lands municipally known as 135 Equestrian Way, located at the southeast corner of Speedsville Road and Equestrian Way. The Phase 3C proposed development consists of four-storey stacked townhouses with a total of 216 rental dwelling units and is subject to Zoning By-Law No. 24-092.

25It is Mr. John’s opinion that the Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, complies with the ROP, the COP, and the ZBL.

26Revised Condition 11 satisfies the City’s proposed affordable housing requirements by providing 20 affordable housing units within Phase 3C of the overall River Mill Community development and therefore accomplishes a similar planning result.

27The Proposal is consistent with the prior approval for the Subject Lands, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

28The Proposal appropriately revises and implements new versions of Condition 11 and Condition 108 of the DPAC and resolves the outstanding appeal by the Appellant.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29The Tribunal accepts Mr. John’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 Act – in particular, s. 2(h) on the orderly development of communities and s. 2(p) on the appropriate location of growth and development.

30Further, the Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

31The Tribunal agrees with Mr. John that the Proposal conforms to the ROP and the COP.

Section 2 of the Planning Act

32The DPS has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest. It will efficiently use planned and existing infrastructure and provides a mixed used development with a range of housing in this neighbourhood.

33The Subject Lands have access to existing and planned municipal services (s. 2(f) of the Act). The Subject Lands are located within a Settlement Area and are appropriate for growth and development (s.2(p) of the Act). The DPS has multi-type residential units, commercial uses, open spaces, trails, and connections for active transportation (s.2(q) of the Act).

34The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out at s. 2 of the Act.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

35The DPS is consistent with s. 2.2.1 of the PPS, which requires the provision of a range of housing options and densities to meet current and projected needs of residents.

36The development will support the creation of complete communities by adding residential density on lands designated for Residential uses (s.2.1.6 of the PPS).

37Section 2.3.1.1 of the PPS identifies Settlement Areas as the focus of growth and development. The Subject Lands are within a Settlement Area with existing service infrastructure and available public facilities.

38The development can be adequately serviced by municipal services.

39The DPS will contribute to a mix of housing options and growth in the province. The development efficiently supports a complete community.

40The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

Section 51(24) of the Planning Act

41Section 51(24) of the Act sets out criteria relating to health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities, the welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality, and other matters. The DPS has appropriate regard for all matters in s. 51(24) of the Act.

42Section 51(25) of the Act provides for the imposition of reasonable conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision.

43In Mr. John’s opinion, the amended DPAC are appropriate for the nature of development of the Subject Lands.

44The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has regard for matters in s. 51(24) of the Act and the DPAC, as amended, are reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan

45The DPS was reviewed against the ROP. In Mr. John’s review the DPS conforms to the ROP.

46The Subject Lands are in an area planned to accommodate the majority of the Region’s population and employment growth to 2051 (s. 1.6.1 – of the ROP) where it provides the foundational framework to guide and prioritize the region’s infrastructure investments and planning policies to support its growth forecast.

47The objective of the ROP is to ensure orderly development occurs in the strategic growth areas; delineated built up areas (s. 2.B.1.1 of the ROP).

48The Tribunal notes that Subject Lands are for residential mixed-use development and planned for growth. The development will support a complete community, with a range of residential types and dwelling units and will assist the Region in achieving its density targets.

49The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the ROP.

City of Cambridge Official Plan

50The Subject Lands have been redesignated Low/Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Natural Open Space System with updated site-specific policies (OPA No. 86).

51The policies in the COP implement growth in accordance with the complete community concept, a well-designed compact vibrant city that provides an appropriate mix of jobs, a range of housing options, convenient access to local services, and community infrastructure (s. 2.1 – of the COP).

52The City will encourage the development of a wide range of housing unit types to accommodate the needs, preferences, and economic resources of the City’s households (s. 2.8.a of the COP); establish residential densities which are both appropriate to existing and new neighbourhoods, and result in the compact development of the city’s residential lands (s. 2.8.d of the COP); promote balanced residential intensification, including individual lot intensification that is compatible with existing and permitted uses on neighbouring properties (s. 2.8.e of the COP); provide opportunities for affordable housing (s. 2.8.i of the COP); and support mixed-use and multi-unit residential developments (s. 2.8.j of the COP).

53The Tribunal finds that the development is a mixed use, multi-unit residential dwelling proposal that also has a compact design, as well as the provision of affordable units in the proposed development.

54The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the COP.

Zoning By-law No. 150-85

55The ZBL has been amended to rezone the Subject Lands to the RM3/CS5 s.4.1.303B.1, RM3 s.4.1.303E, (H)RM3 s.4.1.303E, RM4 s.4.1.303A, (H)RM4 s.4.1.303A, OS1, OS4, and N1 s.4.1.303N Zones to guide the implementation of a mixed-use subdivision that will include residential apartments, townhouses along with commercial uses, a school, park and trails, and open space.

56Mr. John opined that the zoning regulations implement the DPS and the proposed amendments to the DPAC are appropriate for the proposed development.

CONCLUSION

57The Tribunal accepts the uncontested planning opinion evidence of Mr. John. The Tribunal is persuaded that the DPS and DPAC promote efficient land development and intensification in the settlement area.

58The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the ROP and the COP. The DPS has regard for the matters set out in s. 51(24) of the Act and the DPAC are reasonable, as required by s. 51(25) of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act. The development furthers the residential intensification objectives of the Province of Ontario.

59The Appellant’s proposed development will result in a complete community. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal represents good planning and in the public interest.

60The Tribunal grants the appeal, in part, approves in principle the amended DPAC and withholds its final order, as requested by the Parties.

INTERIM ORDER

61THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion is allowed and that:

1. The appeal is allowed, in part, thus the Draft Plan Approval Condition 11 and Condition 108 are approved in principle and amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

2. The Tribunal withholds issuance of its Final Order with respect to the appeal until the Tribunal is notified in writing that an Affordable Rental Housing Agreement is registered on title to the Phase 3C lands (“Notification”). River Mill Development Corporation further agreed that the Affordable Rental Housing Agreement would be in a form satisfactory to the City of Cambridge and would include the terms set out in the revised Condition 11.

3. Upon receipt of the Notification described above, the Tribunal will issue its Final Order of the appeal.

4. Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Cambridge 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 s. 51(58) of the Planning Act.

5. 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.

6. By consent, the Parties are to bear their own respective costs of the Motion and the appeal.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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