Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 16, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000204
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: 11410598 Canada Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 9-storey residential apartment building
Reference Number: PL202400135
Property Address: 50 Indian Creek Road W
Municipality/UT: Chatham-Kent/Chatham-Kent
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000204
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000204
OLT Case Name: 11410598 Canada Inc. v. Chatham-Kent (Municipality)
Heard: November 26, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 11410598 Canada Inc. | David Bronskill |
| Municipality of Chatham-Kent | Annalee Baroudi |
DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant, 11410598 Canada Inc., wishes to develop a nine-storey condominium building with a total of 87 units and 125 parking spaces on the property municipally known as 50 Indian Creek Road West (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is currently vacant. It is located on the south side of Indian Creek Road West, opposite Lacroix Street with an area of 2.29 acres.
2The Applicant submitted a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) Application to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (“Chatham”) to implement its proposal. The Application proposes to rezone the Subject Property from Residential Low Density to a site-specific Residential High Density Second zone with provisions establishing various development standards, including a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres (“m”) and a minimum rear yard setback of 13.5 m.
3The Applicant appealed to this Tribunal because Chatham failed to make a decision within the time prescribed in the Planning Act (“Act”).
4The Applicant submits that the Application underwent a robust public process, including an informal open house, statutory public meetings with the Municipality, public consultations and the required technical assessments. The Municipal Staff endorsed the Application in its Staff Report, dated January 27, 2025 XX, by concluding that the proposal meets the required legislative tests and conforms to the Chatham-Kent Official Plan (“OP”).
5Despite the favourable Staff Report, Chatham Council failed to make a decision regarding the Proposal. It directed the Applicant to conduct an additional public consultation as well as an updated Traffic Impact Study. Counsel for Chatham said she was retained for the hearing with no instructions to support or oppose the Proposal. She advised that there was no witness on behalf of Chatham and that the Tribunal’s task is to decide whether the ZBA should be approved based on the evidence before it.
6Residents in the community who were granted Participant status voiced concerns through written submissions about the Proposal. The concerns included traffic, floodplain issues, stormwater management, compatibility with the neighbourhood and infrastructure capability, amongst other issues.
7After hearing the evidence of the Applicant’s experts, noting that Chatham did not call any witnesses, considering the submissions of Counsels and the Participants, for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the appeals and approves the Zoning By Law Amendment.
LEGISLATION, PLANS AND POLICIES
8The relevant legislative framework and planning policies applicable to the appeal include: the Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and the OP and Zoning By Law 216 2009.
9The Tribunal also must have regard to any information that the Council had in relation to the matter as required by the Act and be satisfied that the Proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
10The Applicant’s expert witness in land use planning, Mr. Bryan Pearce, stated that the proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Act. The building is situated in an appropriate location for growth and development, as it is within the built-up urban area of Chatham and fully serviced. The Subject Property’s location between the municipal drainage, collector roads and golf course to the West provides an ideal setting for the mid to high rise building. In addition, Mr. Pearce stated that the proposal will provide new residential units close to employment, transit and amenities and the design includes generous landscaping, an amenity area, and pedestrian access, which enhances community safety and livability.
11Furthermore, Mr. Pearce said that the proposal is consistent with the policy directives of the PPS 2024 as it represents intensification within an urban area which promotes efficient use of land and provides a mix of housing options within a settlement area. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that this type of housing will provide residents of Chatham the opportunity to downsize to a different type of unit which is not available in Chatham. In addition, Mr. Pearce advised that the PPS 2024 strives for public health and safety by directing development away from areas containing natural or manmade hazards. According to Mr. Pearce, the existing water courses are considered natural hazards. As such, there are top-of-bank setbacks depicted on the concept site plan that restricts site alteration and development within close proximity and also serve as a Municipal Drain Maintenance Corridor.
12Mr. Pearce also believed that the proposal conforms to the OP. Specifically, he found that the proposal meets the objectives of the OP’s housing policies under section 2.3.4 which supports infill and intensification projects. According to Mr. Pearce, the proposal makes use of vacant underutilized land which is accommodated by existing water, sanitary, and sewage and storm sewage services. It is near transit, has adequate parking on site and it is compatible with the existing surrounding area with adequate angular planes through spatial separation.
13Furthermore, the proposal conforms to the high-density residential land use policies under section B2.3.6 of the OP. The residential area land use policies consider this development a high-density residential development (76-150 dwellings units per net residential hectare). The proposed density is 93 dwelling units per hectare which is below the maximum density permitted.
14Indian Creak Road West is identified as a Urban Collector Road in the OP; the proposed building is near community services; the design of the proposal will minimize impact of shadowing on adjacent lands as supported by a Shadow Impact Study; the proposal has “high quality” amenity spaces for residents including fitness and common rooms on the first floor and roof-top common room to maximize afternoon sun and vies of the adjacent golf course and entrance of access will be from Indian Creak Road. According to Mr. Pearce, all these aspects meet the considerations under the high-density land policies of the OP.
Traffic Concerns
15It became apparent during the Hearing that accommodation of additional traffic (a consideration under the housing policies of the OP) is a central issue for Council as well as the Participants. Mr. Shurjeet Tunio, the Applicant’s expert in Transportation Planning, took the Tribunal through the Traffic Impact Assessment dated July 24, 2024 (initial Traffic Assessment) in support of the Application. He then explained that an updated Traffic Impact Assessment, dated June 25, 2025 (updated Traffic Assessment), was conducted after filing the Appeal. It concluded that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on traffic operations in the surrounding area and that the existing road network and can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes without adverse effects on safety, capacity and or efficiency.
16Mr. Tunio stated that the initial Traffic Assessment was based on traffic counts taken on June 22, 2023, at the intersections of Indian Creek Road West with Lacroix Street and Indian Creek Road West with Queen Street/Charing Crossing Road, in 15-minute increments from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He explained that this date was chosen because it accounted for summer tourist season in Chatham where there would be more traffic on the internal and major roads. He explained to the Tribunal that a growth rate of 2-3% was added to how the intersections normally functioned. This projection was added to the projected traffic from the development, and the information was analyzed using Synchro Software, which is standard practice used by traffic engineers to analyze traffic operations. Based on the results, the proposed development was not contributing negatively to the intersections capacity and level of service.
17Mr. Tunio stated that Municipal Staff reviewed the initial Traffic Assessment, and there was no concern. With that said, Council recommended additional counts during the school season to reflect traffic coming and going out of the schools (especially a new nearby school) and the impact it may have on school morning pick-up and drop-off for the children. As a result, an updated Traffic Assessment was completed based on additional counts taken on May 25, 2025. The same increments and intersections were analyzed using the same growth rate. The result concluded that the intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service during 2027 and 2037 during morning and evening peak hours, adequate site line distance is provided for safe access to the Subject Property and no upgrades or changes to the existing infrastructure are required.
18Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Mr. Tunio stated that the Chatham was provided with the terms of reference of the Traffic Impact Assessments and they could have provided an opinion regarding the growth rate applied and how it is distributed at the chosen intersections. In this case, Chatham accepted the terms of references with no comments. Further, Mr. Tunio also stated that Chatham agreed to the single day analysis versus an analysis over a number of days.
PARTICIPANTS’ CONCERNS
19While traffic was one of the main concerns, Mr. Pearce addressed some of the Participants other concerns during the Hearing. Mr. Pearce testified that the technical studies submitted address concerns with respect to adequate capacity for water, sanitary and storm water systems, and that the design plans have been contemplated in a way to minimize privacy issues, for example balconies have been situated in a way to minimize overlook.
20Furthermore, Mr. Pearce stated that the Conservation Authority and Municipal Drainage Department have been consulted during the review process. They determined that all their requirements are met. Therefore, concerns relating to the floodplain, Indian Creek and potential negative impacts on the water table, have been addressed.
21Regarding whether this development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, Counsel for the Applicant reiterated that compatibility means that the development is capable of co-existing in harmony with the surrounding uses and will not have undue adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. This does not mean that the development has to be the “same as” or “similar to”, but that the development can co-exist in harmony with the surrounding uses. In this case, Counsel argued that the development has generous setbacks to adjacent uses, there are no issues with the angular plane, the Shadow Impact Study found no unreasonable impacts, privacy concerns have been mitigated and there are natural buffers to the surrounding areas (golf course to the West and Indian Creek to the East). He submitted that the actual site is an appropriate location for a 9-storey building along Indian Creek Road West.
22Mr. Pearce further stated that while high rise developments have concentrated within the downtown Chatham area (north end of Chatham), as the Chatham community grows, infill intensification opportunities present themselves. In this case, this development is an infill opportunity with no adverse impacts.
FINDINGS
23The Tribunal is persuaded by the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Pearce. The The Tribunal finds that the Revised Proposal has sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act. It is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms to the OP which promotes intensification in vacant underutilized lands and is in line with the high-density land use policies.
24Chatham did not produce an expert to refute the results of the Traffic Impact Assessments conducted by the Applicant’s witness. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s witness that the result of the Traffic Impact Assessment concludes that there are no negative impacts as a result of this development on the intersections under review. The Tribunal finds that the proposal meets the housing policy objective of being able to accommodate traffic.
25In addition, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Pearce has adequately addressed the participants concerns. His testimony supports the fact that this development represents good planning and is in the publics interest. The Tribunal is persuaded that the proposal represents a good infill intensification opportunity without adverse impacts to infrastructure and the natural environment.
ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, and the requested Zoning By-law 216 2009 of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, is amended as set out in the Attachment 1 to this Order.
27The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to assign numbers to the Zoning By-law for record keeping purposes.
“Yasna Faghani”
YASNA FAGHANI
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