Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

March 19, 2026

OLT-23-000521

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

Applicant/Appellant:

Sifton Properties Limited

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit a residential development consisting of single detached units, townhouses and apartment dwellings

Reference Number:

PZ-15-18

Property Address:

277, 299 and 301 Hardy Road

Municipality/UT:

Brantford/Brant

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000522

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000521

OLT Case Name:

Sifton Properties Ltd. v. Brantford (City)

Heard:

March 4 and 5, 2026 by Video Hearing

Parties

Counsel

Sifton Properties Limited

Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan

City of Brantford

Stephen Brogden

DECISION DELIVERED BY DAvid brown AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed by Sifton Properties Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”) against the City of Brantford (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframe prescribed in the Planning Act.

2The Appellant proposes an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 (“CZB”) to allow a maximum of 327 units, whereas the current zoning permits a maximum of 93 units.

3The City opposes the proposed amendment and takes the position that the application was filed under a planning policy framework that does not support the proposed amendment and requested the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

4The Appellant’s position is that the current planning policy framework supports the proposal and requested that the appeal be allowed.

5The Tribunal, having considered the evidence proffered and the submissions from the Parties, reasoned that the current policy framework is the determinate framework for the consideration of the amendment and the Tribunal finds that the current policy framework supports the proposed amendment.

6The Tribunal allows the appeal and approves the proposed amendment to the CZB for the reasons and in the form set out, as follows below.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

7The Appellant owns a 42-hectare (“ha”) parcel of land located at 277, 299, and 301 Hardy Road (“Sifton Holdings”). The majority of the Sifton Holdings were originally approved for development by the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) in its Order issued in 2017 (“2017 OMB Decision”).

8The Appellant acquired an abutting parcel of land addressing an unresolved concern raised in the 2017 OMB Decision and in 2018, the Appellant submitted new applications to the City, proposing amendments to the Official Plan (“OPA”), the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), and an application for a Plan of Subdivision to create a Vacant Land Condominium (“VLC”) (together the “Applications”) to facilitate the development the Sifton Holdings. The City deemed the Applications complete on November 16, 2018 and a Statutory Public Meeting was held on March 9, 2023. The Applications were appealed to the Tribunal on May 26, 2023.

9The Appellant proposed to develop the Sifton Holdings with a residential development comprised of a mix of single, semi-detached, and townhouse dwellings on a private condominium road and apartment dwellings at the northeast corner of the property. The Sifton Holdings border the Grand River along the southerly boundary and include natural heritage features and a Provincially Significant Wetland, which are not included within the limits of the proposed development. The Sifton Holdings are also traversed by the Trans-Canada Trail.

10The Appellant and the City negotiated a settlement of the appeals in 2024 (“Settlement”). A condition of the Settlement was the exclusion the parcel of land located at the northeast corner of the Sifton Holdings referred to as the Northeast Medium Density Block (“NMDB”/“Subject Lands”) as part of the Settlement. The Parties agreed that the ZBA appeal would be deferred as it applies to the NMDB.

11The Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) identified the purpose of the deferral of the consideration of the appeal as it applies to the NMDB was, “to give the City an opportunity to study the proposed revisions (4 stories to 6 stories) and to consult with the public respecting same.”

12The Tribunal considered the Settlement at a hearing on July 29, 2024. The appeals, as set out in the MOS, were allowed, and the Tribunal issued an Interim Order on August 27, 2024, approving the OPA, approving the ZBA, subject to the confirmation of the clearance of certain conditions and excluding the NMDB, and approving the VLC, subject to the conditions of draft plan approval set out in the Tribunal’s Interim Order. The Tribunal received confirmation of the fulfillment of the conditions of the Interim Order applying to the ZBA and issued a Final Order on September 26, 2024.

13The Appellant’s original proposal for the NMDB was four-storey apartment buildings containing a total of 222 units. The Appellant revised their proposal to three, six-storey apartment dwellings containing a total of 327 units after having filed its appeal and during the negotiations with the City.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

14The Tribunal considered the viva voce testimony and witness statements provided by the following on behalf of the Appellant:

a) Chris Pidgeon is a Registered Professional Planner with over 35 years of experience and has been involved with the Sifton Holdings redevelopment proposal dating back to 2008. Mr. Pidgeon was qualified to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning.

b) Jack Brand is a Professional Engineer and a Water Resources Engineer with AECOM, the consulting engineers for the Appellant. Mr. Brand was qualified to provide opinion evidence as an expert in municipal servicing.

15The Tribunal considered the viva voce testimony and witness statements provided by the following on behalf of the City:

a) Gary Peever, the City’s Manager of Development Engineering, was qualified to provide opinion evidence as an expert in the area of municipal servicing process. It was noted that Mr. Peever is not presently a Licensed Engineer and was not qualified by the Tribunal to provide engineering opinion evidence.

b) Dora Coll is a Registered Professional Planner and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners employed with the City as an Intermediate Development Planner. Ms. Coll was qualified to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning.

Planning Evidence

16Mr. Pidgeon and Ms. Coll (together “the Planners”) were in agreement that the ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. Specifically, the proposed development of the NMDB represents the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, is the appropriate location of growth and development, promotes a built-form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.

17The Planners further agreed that the proposed development of the NMDB is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) as the development represents an appropriate range and mix of housing and represents an efficient land use within a settlement area.

Official Plan Considerations

City of Brantford Official Plan, 2021

18The City Official Plan, 2021 (“2021 OP”) designates the Subject Lands as Residential on Schedule 3 and Designated Greenfield Area on Schedule 2. The Residential designation permits mid-rise buildings, which are defined as being between three and six storeys in height. The Residential policies encourage mid-rise development to be located on suitably sized lots in proximity to community facilities, open space, transit, and having frontage on an Arterial Road. The Planners agreed the proposed development conforms to the Residential policies applicable in the 2021 OP.

19Mr. Pidgeon reviewed the criteria set out in the policies for Mid-Rise Residential Buildings contained in Policy 5.2.1. of the 2021 OP, and specifically Policy 5.2.1.j., which includes criteria for when a new site-specific zoning is under consideration to permit a new Mid-Rise Residential development. Mr. Pidgeon proffered the proposed development of the NMDB meets the criteria set out.

20Ms. Coll, under cross-examination, agreed that the proposed development meets the criteria set out in Policy 5.2.1.j., and further, conforms to Policy 5.2.1.g., which permits apartment buildings between three and six storeys.

21Ms. Coll reviewed Section 8.0 of the 2021 OP that outlines policies for municipal servicing infrastructure. Policy 8.1.f of the 2021 OP states:

Before the approval of any application for development, the City must be satisfied that adequate municipal servicing infrastructure, including overall system capacity, is available or can efficiently and economically be provided to support the proposal. Where adequate municipal servicing infrastructure does not exist, the City may not approve the application or may use Holding provisions in the Zoning By-law to regulate the timing of development. Where adequate servicing does not exist to support a proposed development, the City will not be obliged to provide such servicing in advance of development, in accordance with the City’s Municipal Wastewater Allocation Policy.

22Ms. Coll, having reviewed the Witness Statement of Mr. Peever, proffered that the Appellant has not demonstrated that adequate sanitary sewer servicing is available for the Subject Lands and recommended the ZBA include a Holding provision requiring the Appellant to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer service exists to support the proposed development.

23Ms. Coll noted that the 2017 OMB Decision included a Holding provision for the NMDB, however, when the CZB was adopted, the site-specific zoning applying to the Subject Lands did not include a Holding provision. Ms. Coll proffered that this was an oversight and that the Holding provision should have been carried forward in the CZB. Ms. Coll recommended that, in the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal, the new zoning should include the Holding provision.

24Mr. Pidgeon submitted that development of the Subject Lands will require that Site Plan Control and a Building Permit is obtained and those City processes will address the servicing requirements.

City of Brantford Official Plan, 1987

25Ms. Coll proffered that the ZBA was filed with the City prior to the 2021 OP being in force. At the time the Applications were filed, the 1987 City Official Plan (“1987 OP”) was in force and effect. Ms. Coll reviewed the applicable Residential Area – Medium Density policies noting that low-rise apartment buildings were permitted limited to a maximum of four storeys in height. The maximum density of 60 units per net residential hectare were permitted.

26The proposed development of the NMDB containing 327 units will result in a density of 123.9 units per hectare. Ms. Coll opined that proposed development would not conform with the 1987 OP and would therefore require an amendment to the 1987 OP. The Applications did not include a request for an amendment to the maximum density.

27Ms. Coll acknowledged that the 1987 OP is not in effect and agreed that the ZBA should be reviewed against the current official plan in effect, that being the 2021 OP.

28The Tribunal notes that the Issues List attached to the Procedural Order for these proceedings does not make reference to the 1987 OP. The Tribunal finds that, should the City have intended to raise the issue of conformity with the 1987 OP, the City should have raised the matter in the Issues List.

Zoning By-law Considerations

29The City adopted the CZB in September of 2024, replacing the former Zoning By-law No. 160-90 (“Former ZB”). The CZB zoned the Subject Lands Residential Mid-Rise – Exception 14 (RMR-14). The Residential Mid-Rise provisions include a number of performance standards, including, among other provisions: minimum setbacks, minimum private amenity space, minimum and maximum building height, and minimum landscaped open space requirements. The site-specific Exception 14 restricts the maximum number of dwelling units to 93.

30The Planners agreed that the maximum dwelling unit provision is a carry over from the 2017 OMB Decision. Mr. Pidgeon explained that, at the time of the OMB appeal, the Appellant was proposing to develop the NMDB with 93 townhouse units.

31The Planners further agreed that the CZB permits apartment buildings with a maximum height of six storeys. The conceptual plan submitted demonstrates that the proposed development conforms with the provisions of the CZB, with the exception of the maximum number of dwelling units.

32The Planners agreed that the current zoning applying to the NMDB does not include a Holding provision.

Sanitary Sewer Servicing Considerations

33Mr. Brand explained that it is proposed to connect the development of the NMDB to the sanitary sewer infrastructure located on the VLC lands. He explained that the final design of the VLC sanitary sewer infrastructure has not been completed at this time. Mr. Brand advised that the design of the sanitary sewer servicing requirements and connections for the NMDB will be completed during the Site Plan Control process. He noted that a preliminary design for the VLC has been submitted to the City and no issues with respect to potential constraints in the City sewer capacity have been identified.

34Mr. Peever noted that the VLC lands are proposed to be serviced with a private sanitary sewer pumping station as a result of the topography of the Sifton Holdings and the height of the City service located on Hardy Road. The Appellant has not demonstrated that servicing can be provided and the City has not approved a design for the private sanitary pumping system. The imposition of a Holding provision is appropriate to ensure that the Appellant can demonstrate servicing capabilities prior to approving the ZBA. Mr. Peever noted that the VLC conditions of approval do not specifically provide for the servicing of the NMDB and there are no requirements on the NMDB lands to service the lands through the VLC infrastructure.

35Mr. Peever acknowledged that the City prepared a report in support of the ZBA, that was presented to City Council in 2023, that anticipated a development of 222 units on the NMDB, within which no servicing concerns were identified. Mr. Peever further acknowledged that the Subject Lands could be serviced without connecting to the VLC, however, this is not a desirable solution for the City.

36The Tribunal notes that the policy starts with the phrase, “Before the approval of any application for development…” and finds that the Site Plan Control process and the Building Permit process will provide the City with opportunity to ensure that adequate servicing is available for the proposed development and therefore conforms with the policy direction in the 2021 OP.

37The Tribunal further notes that the Subject Lands are currently zoned to permit a mid-rise apartment development, and should the Appellants file an “application for development”, as described in the 2021 OP, that complies with the CZB, the City would use the Site Plan Control process to ensure adequate servicing is available prior to approval and thereby conforming to Policy 8.1.f. of the 2021 OP.

Storm Water Management Considerations

38Mr. Brand advised that a storm water management design has not been completed for the proposed development of the NMDB. He explained that storm water management will be addressed on a site-specific basis implementing the standard practices and requirements of the municipality which will take in to account the natural heritage features to the south of the NMDB. Mr. Brand opined that the number of units within the proposed development does not impact the storm water management design, as it is determined based on impervious surface areas such as parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, and roof tops.

39Mr. Peevers advised the Tribunal that the City requires that applicant’s provide a Functional Servicing Report (“FSR”) when submitting applications to rezone. The purpose of preparing the FSR is to address any issues with servicing that may impact the development potential of a property.

40The Tribunal finds that the lands are currently zoned to permit the NMDB to be developed in a form similar to that which is described on the concept plan. The Tribunal accepts the position proffered by Mr. Brand, that the number of units does not impact the storm water management of the NMDB, and finds that requiring storm water management design prior to the consideration of the ZBA, in this instance, is not warranted.

41Further, based on the City’s evidence, the Tribunal expects that the City would have been provided with an FSR in 2018, at the time the new Applications were submitted for the Sifton Holdings, which would have included the NMDB. The Tribunal reasons that the issues surrounding storm water management would have been identified at that time and can be addressed during the Site Plan Control process.

Issues List Considerations

42The Tribunal considered the issues identified in the Issues List as follows below.

Issue No. 1: Does the proposed rezoning have regard for the fact that the subject lands have not yet been subdivided, and will require approval of a Consent or a Plan of Subdivision from the appropriate approval authority?

43The Planners were in agreement that the NMDB does not require a severance from the balance of the Sifton Holdings to facilitate the approval of the ZBA or the eventual development of the NMDB.

Issue No. 2: Does the proposal comply with matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act? / Issue No. 3: Is the proposed density consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS), which requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing and to promote efficient land use within settlement areas?

44As set out earlier in this Decision, the Planners agreed that the ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS.

Issue No. 4: Does the proposed development conform to the applicable policies in the City of Brantford Official Plan pertaining to the Greenfield Designation?

45Mr. Pidgeon opined that the ZBA conforms to the applicable policies of the 2021 OP including the Greenbelt Designation.

46The Tribunal finds that the NMDB is zoned to permit a mid-rise apartment development. The ZBA is seeking an increase in the number of units permitted, which the Planners have confirmed will not alter the built-form permitted by the current zoning. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development conforms with the Greenbelt Designation as supported by the City’s zoning of the Subject Lands in the CZB.

Issue No. 5: Does the proposed development implement the City of Brantford Official Plan objectives for new development and housing, while balancing compatibility in the form of built-form, scale and transition with neighbouring properties?

47Mr. Pidgeon opined that the NMDB is an appropriate location for a mid-rise apartment development as permitted by the current zoning. The proposed development balances the objectives of the 2021 OP of compatibility in built-form, scale, and transition. He proffered that the proposed development will assist the City in achieving a range and mix of housing types to meet the demands of the growing City and maintaining a minimum five-year supply of suitably zoned lands to achieve housing targets.

48Having considered the opinions proffered by Mr. Pidgeon, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development conforms to the 2021 OP objectives and effectively balances the compatibility with neighbouring properties. The Tribunal notes that the design policies contained in the 2021 OP would typically be implemented through the Site Plan Control process addressing compatibility in built from, scale, and transition.

49The Tribunal finds that Issue No. 5 calls into question the conformity with the 2021 OP of the CZB which the Tribunal has been advised zones the Subject Lands to permit six-storey apartment buildings.

Issue No. 6: Does the proposed development conform to the intent of the Residential Mid-Rise (RMR) Zone in the City of Brantford Zoning By-law?

50Mr. Pidgeon opined that conformity with the intent of the CZB is not a test for an application for rezoning. Notwithstanding, he proffered that the proposed development, as described on the concept plan, is in full compliance with the CZB, with the exception of the total number of units.

51The evidence of the Planners is that the number of units does not affect the built-form, and no evidence was presented with respect to the intent of the Residential Mid-Rise zoning provisions. The Tribunal finds that the Issue addresses the Residential Mid-Rise zoning provisions and not the site-specific unit restriction. The Tribunal has been advised by the Planners that the proposed development complies with the current Residential Mid-Rise zoning provisions. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the site-specific exception that restricts the maximum number of units should be amended.

Issue No. 7: Does Zoning By-law 124-2024 contain zoning provisions which adequately addresses whether a maximum unit count is an appropriate tool for controlling built-form?

52Mr. Pidgeon, in his Witness Statement, raised the question of whether a unit restriction is required at all for the ZBA. He explained that the proposed unit maximum was introduced by the OMB in the 2017 OMB Decision in response to the concept plan for the NMDB at that time. The current zoning permits the development of the NMDB as described on the concept plan, which includes three, six-storey apartment buildings and surface parking, and the unit count has no impact on the built-form.

53Ms. Coll, in her Witness Statement, proffered that the maximum number of units is dependent on municipal servicing capacity, which will be analyzed during the Site Plan Control process. She recommended that a Holding provision be implemented to ensure appropriate and adequate servicing is available.

54In response to questions from the Tribunal, Ms. Coll confirmed that it is her opinion a maximum unit number is not required in this instance, subject to the Holding provision being applied.

55The Tribunal finds that the CZB performance standards appropriately regulate the built-form independent of the maximum unit restriction. The Tribunal concludes that the maximum unit restriction contained in the CZB is not an effective tool for controlling built-form. The maximum unit restriction could be removed from the CZB and the built-form could remain substantially unchanged. The Tribunal notes that it is not being requested to remove the unit restriction.

Issue No. 8: Is there sufficient servicing capacity (water, wastewater, stormwater) to accommodate the proposed development without adverse impacts on existing infrastructure?

56Mr. Brand and Mr. Peever agree that there is no issue with respect the availability of municipal water servicing of the Subject Lands. The Appellant is proposing to provide wastewater (sanitary sewer) servicing through the infrastructure of the VLC, and a preliminary design has been submitted to the City.

57Ms. Coll and Mr. Peever acknowledged that the sanitary sewer service design can be completed through the Site Plan Control process, however, they both opined that a Holding provision, as contemplated in Policy 8.1 of the 2021 OP, should be applied to the ZBA should the Tribunal allow the appeal.

58Mr. Pidgeon contends that the lands are currently zoned to permit a mid-rise apartment development and there is no Holding provision in place. The City can rely on the Site Plan Control process to address servicing, and the introduction of a Holding provision is unnecessary.

59The Tribunal finds that the CZB permits the Appellant to develop the Subject Lands with a mid-rise apartment development. Both of the City’s witnesses agreed that the servicing details can be finalized through the Site Plan Control process and the Tribunal finds no benefit to imposing a further layer of approvals on a housing project when the City and the Province of Ontario are actively working to expedite approvals to create more housing.

Issue No. 9: Does the proposed servicing strategy comply with municipal standards and align with the Official Plan?

60The Tribunal heard no evidence to suggest that the proposed servicing arrangement does not align with the City’s servicing standards or the 2021 OP. The Appellant and the City acknowledged that the servicing plans have not been finalized for the Subject Lands and the VLC and the Tribunal finds no reason to expect that the servicing strategy will not comply with the municipal standards or conform to the policies of the 2021 OP.

61The Transportation Issues identified in Issues 10 and 11 were withdrawn at the beginning of the hearing and no transportation evidence was called.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS

62The Appellant submits that the matter before the Tribunal is whether increasing the number of units from 93 to 327 is good planning and notes that the change in the number of units does not impact the built-form, as currently permitted by the CZB.

63The City counters that increasing the number of units from 93 to 327 does not conform to the Official Plan that was in effect at the time of the applications in 2018 and would require that an Official Plan Amendment accompany the Applications.

64The Tribunal was directed to Clergy Properties Ltd. v. City of Mississauga¹, being a decision of the OMB that found an application for a planning approval under the Planning Act is to be considered under the policies prevailing at the time of the application (“Clergy Principle”).

65The Appellant submits that the Clergy Principle is intended to protect appellants from a changing policy framework during the time in which an application is being considered by a municipality. The Appellant did not oppose the changing policy framework in this instance, and in fact welcomed the changes resulting from the 2021 OP and the CZB, with the exception of the maximum unit restriction which is the subject of these proceedings.

66The Tribunal was advised that the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law in effect at the time the Applications were filed with the City are no longer in effect. The City repealed the 1987 OP and replaced it with the 2021 OP and the evidence is that the proposed development of the Subject Lands conforms with the 2021 OP. Further, the Former ZB has also been repealed and replaced with the CZB, and the evidence is that the built-form of the proposed development, as contemplated on the concept plan, complies with the CZB.

67The Tribunal reasons that the City has changed the policy framework that affects the Subject Lands, creating a more favourable policy framework for the Appellant as it relates to the proposed development. The Appellant did not oppose the 2021 OP or the CZB. The Tribunal further notes that the City proceeded with enactment of the CZB notwithstanding that the Applications for the Sifton Holdings were the subject of appeals before the Tribunal.

68The City is now requesting the Tribunal consider the ZBA against a more restrictive policy framework that is no longer in effect for the Subject Lands.

69The Tribunal reasons that the Clergy Principle is not applicable in this instance as the City has introduced a policy framework that substantially supports the proposed development and the Appellant is seeking relief to a site-specific provision that is unchanged from the previous policy framework. The Clergy Principle is intended to be a shield and not a sword and the Tribunal finds that the City is asking the Tribunal to apply the Clergy Principle to create a less favourable policy framework for its consideration of the ZBA.

70The Tribunal finds that the City did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal to support maintaining the unit restriction of 93 units, other than referencing the 2017 OMB Decision. The Tribunal reasons that the OMB considered the prior appeal under a different policy regime and based on a different concept for the development of the Subject Lands. The ZBA application was filed in 2018, after the OMB issued its decision, and the Tribunal finds that the determination in the 2017 OMB Decision does not offer assistance to the Tribunal in consideration of the ZBA before the Tribunal, as the ZBA is seeking an amendment to the CZB under a different policy framework.

71The City’s Intermediate Development Planner did not support the inclusion of any unit restriction and instead requested that a Holding provision be applied to the Subject Lands based on the 2017 OMB Decision, and as provided for in Section 8.0 of the 2021 OP. The City’s Manager of Development Engineering identified concerns with respect to sanitary sewer servicing and storm water management, both of which he agreed can be addressed through the Site Plan Control process. The City’s witnesses provided no evidence opposing the request to change the number of units from 93 to 327.

72The Tribunal reviewed the MOS in the context of the deferral of the NMDB and the reasons provided for the deferral. The Tribunal was advised that no public consultation occurred between when the Tribunal’s Order was issued on August, 27, 2024 and the date of this Hearing. It is further noted that the City enacted the CZB on September 24, 2024, which changed the zoning permissions of the Subject Lands to allow for the development in the form proposed by the Appellant. The Tribunal reasons that 18 months is ample time to study the proposed revisions and conduct public consultation on a development proposal that the Tribunal was advised is now permitted by the CZB and conforms with the 2021 OP.

73The Tribunal finds that the ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act as the ZBA will facilitate: the orderly development of the Subject Lands contributing to a safe and healthy community; residential growth that meets the City’s housing targets; development that supports public transit; and a built-form that is well designed and creates a sense of place.

74The Tribunal finds that the ZBA supports the City in meeting its growth targets, provides a range and mix of housing, supports the achievement of complete communities, supports existing transit infrastructure, and will create a healthy, livable, and safe community consistent with the policies of the PPS.

75The Subject Lands are designated Greenfield Area in the 2021 OP and can be serviced by municipal services. Site Plan Control applies to the development of the Subject Lands and through the review of an application, the development of the Subject Lands will be reviewed against the City’s Design Guidelines, ensuring a high-quality design. The proposed development will exceed the minimum density target 60 person per hectare. The Tribunal finds that the ZBA conforms with the 2021 OP.

76The Tribunal finds that the ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.

77The Tribunal allows the appeal and approves the ZBA to permit a maximum of 327 units on the Subject Lands.

ORDER

78THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the City of Brantford By-law No. 124-2024 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

79The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Brantford to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

MEMBER