Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 16, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000638

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

Applicant and Appellant: 9287043 Canada Corporation

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

Description: To permit the development of a 72-lot residential subdivision

Reference Number: DO2-02-21-0071

Property Address: 6544 Jack Pine Crescent

Municipality: Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000638

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000638

OLT Case Name: 9287043 Canada Corporation v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(43) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 9287043 Canada Corporation

Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision

Description: To permit the development of a 72-lot residential subdivision

Reference Number: DO7-16-21-0023

Property Address: 6544 Jack Pine Crescent

Municipality: Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000639

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000638

Heard: January 13 to 24, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

9287043 Canada Corporation (Sunset Lakes)

Kyle Gossen Grace O’Brien

City of Ottawa

Timothy Marc

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a Hearing on the Merits of appeals filed by 9287043 Canada Corporation (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 51(43) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”), concerning a zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) application and conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision (“Conditions”) imposed by the City of Ottawa (“City”) in relation to the City’s draft approval of a plan of subdivision (“Draft Plan”) for lands known municipally as 6544 Jack Pine Crescent (“Subject Lands”).

2The ZBA proposes to rezone the Subject Lands from Development Reserve (DR1 subzone) to Village Residential First Density (V1E subzone) and Parks and Open Space (O1 zone and O1R subzone), with various site-specific provisions, to permit the development of residential lots in a settlement area of the City known as the Village of Greely.

3The Draft Plan, granted by the City on September 28, 2023, provides for 72 residential lots on private well water and septic systems with minimum lot areas of 0.4 hectares (“ha”) and minimum lot frontages of 30 metres (“m”) in accordance with the ZBA provisions.

SETTLEMENTS

Full Settlement of ZBA

4The Parties reached a settlement of the ZBA appeal in advance of the Hearing and filed Minutes of Settlement with the Tribunal, which were marked as Exhibit 8. The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal approve the ZBA in the form attached to this Decision as Schedule 1 (“Revised ZBA”).

Partial Settlement of Draft Plan Conditions

5The Parties advised that many of the Conditions had either been cleared in advance of the Hearing or would be cleared upon approval of the ZBA. A consolidated table showing the outstanding Conditions proposed by the City and alternative language proposed by the Appellant was submitted to the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 7.

6An updated table containing revisions to the Appellant’s proposed wording derived from witness testimony was submitted to the Tribunal on the final day of the Hearing. It has been attached to this Decision as Schedule 2.

ISSES

7The contested Conditions and the Appellant’s proposed revisions thereto formed the issues at the Hearing, as follows:

1. Stormwater Management

a) Whether required changes to municipal drainage mapping must occur prior to the commencement of works for the proposed subdivision (Conditions 1, 5, 102 and 104).

b) Whether the stormwater management (“SWM”) report and associated documents prepared in support of the Draft Plan are complete and appropriate and, if so, should be implemented through the subdivision agreement (Conditions 87, 88 and 97).

2. Parkland

a) Whether a wildlife corridor and certain pedestrian pathways on the Subject Lands should be credited as parkland dedication (Conditions 38, 39 and 66).

b) Whether works completed by the Appellant to construct pedestrian pathways should be discounted against the City’s park development fee (Condition 41).

3. Fencing

a) Whether the City’s proposed fencing plan for the Subject Lands is reasonable and appropriate (Conditions 30, 31 and 50).

4. Wells and Grading

a) Whether 0.3 m reserves pertaining to the provision of a well inspection report/certificate of well compliance for each lot are appropriate (Conditions 105, 112).

b) Whether the registration of the subdivision should be limited to a maximum of 40 lots per registration (Condition 109).

c) Whether required securities for the grading of each lot are appropriate (Condition 133).

PARTICIPANTS

8At a prior Case Management Conference held for these proceedings, David and Ann Brown were granted Participant Status. Mr. and Ms. Brown own property abutting the Subject Lands and are concerned with potential impacts the Draft Plan might have on road access to their property.

9At the Hearing, it was demonstrated to the Tribunal that road access to the Browns’ property will not be impacted by the Draft Plan.

WITNESSES

Appellant Witnesses

10The Appellant called four expert witnesses and two non-expert witnesses, as follows:

Land Use Planning

1. Jocelyn Chandler, the Director of Land and Water Resources at JFSA Canada Inc. (“JFSA”). Ms. Chandler is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practicing land use planning since 2002. Her experience includes works pertaining to natural hazards, stormwater management planning, and private servicing. She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Land Use Planning.

Stormwater Management

2. Jonathon Burnett, a Senior Water Resources Engineer with JFSA. Mr. Burnett is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario and has more than 11 years of experience pertaining to water resource management, including specialised credentials in hydraulic modelling. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Water Resources Engineering and Civil Engineering.

3. Daniel Payer, the President and Senior Design and Construction Engineer at ARK Engineering and Development. Mr. Payer is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario and has more than 22 years of civil engineering experience related to the design and registration of subdivisions. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Civil Engineering.

Parkland

4. Drew Paulusse, the Manager of Environmental Services and a Senior Biologist at GEMTEC Consulting Engineers and Scientists. Mr. Paulusse has approximately 18 years of experience in, and numerous certifications pertaining to, a range of environmental and ecological assessments. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Biology and Natural Heritage.

Non-Expert Witnesses

5. Daniel Anderson, the Chief Executive Officer of Sunset Lakes Developments. Sunset Lakes Developments is the overarching corporation (to which the Appellant company is a subsidiary) responsible for the development of the Subject Lands and 23 neighbouring plans of subdivision. Mr. Anderson lives within the Village of Greely and has been involved with every phase of its development since the early 1990s.

6. Michelle LaPierre, a member of the Ontario Bar Association and legal counsel to the Appellant for more than 20 years in relation to the registration and conveyance of lands within the Village of Greely. The Appellant sought to have Ms. LaPierre qualified as an expert witness in Real Estate Registration and Conveyancing. However, while Ms. LaPierre was not providing legal counsel to the Appellant for the purposes of the Hearing, she is nonetheless an ongoing advocate for her client, including with respect to the applications currently before the Tribunal. She was therefore not deemed to be clear of bias for the purposes of providing independent expert witness testimony and was not qualified as such. The Tribunal did permit her to provide testimony as a non-expert.

City Witnesses

11The City called five expert witnesses, as follows:

Land Use Planning

1. Cheryl McWilliams, a Planner III with Rural Development Review in the City’s Planning, Development and Building Services Department. Ms. McWilliams is a Registered Professional Planner with over 35 years of experience in land use planning. She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Land Use Planning.

Stormwater Management

2. Damien Whittaker, a Senior Engineer with the City. Mr. Whittaker is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario with more than 26 years of engineering experience. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Civil Engineering.

3. Michel Kearney, a Senior Project Manager in Infrastructure Planning at the City. Mr. Kearney is a Registered Professional Geoscientist in Ontario and has worked in the fields of hydrogeology and private servicing for over 40 years. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Hydrogeology.

Parkland

4. Matthew Hayley, a Senior Environmental Planner with the City. Mr. Hayley is a Certified Environmental Practitioner in Canada and has been practicing environmental planning for approximately 20 years. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Environmental Planning.

5. Steve Gauthier, a Senior Planner in Parks and Facilities Planning at the City. Mr. Gauthier is a Registered Professional Planner and has been practicing land use planning for 22 years, with experience in development, policy, and parks planning. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in Parks Planning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Site and Area Context

12The Subject Lands comprise 35.038 ha of undeveloped, forested land (inclusive of significant woodlands and wetlands) that are part of a larger contiguous mixed forest system, including:

• A central, rectangular 10-acre woodlot known as the Osgoode Nature Reserve that is bounded by the Subject Lands to the west, south and east;
• A triangular woodlot known as the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot to the immediate east of the Subject Lands;
• A forested municipal park to the immediate west of the Subject Lands, known as Green Jacket Park; and
• A mature forest system to the southwest of the Subject Lands, south of Green Jacket Park.

13To assist with the preservation and maintenance of the mature tree canopy on the Subject Lands, septic systems, wells and houses are to be located on the front half of each lot, which are required to maintain 20 per cent tree coverage. The back half of each lot is subject to a conservation easement and 100 per cent tree preservation, except for lots backing onto the proposed SWM ponds, in which only 25 per cent rear lot tree preservation is required.

14To the east of the Subject Lands is a residential subdivision known as Osgoode Gardens. To the south, a similar subdivision known as Greely West. Both Osgoode Gardens and Greely West are within the Village of Greely.

15To the west of the Subject Lands is a rural residential subdivision known as Emerald Links Phase 3, which has been approved, registered, graded, and partially developed with single detached houses, a street network, drainage ditches and a SWM pond. Emerald Links Phase 3 is outside of the Village of Greely.

16To the north of the Subject Lands and the Osgoode Nature Reserve are two undeveloped parcels of land and, just beyond those, the Emerald Links Golf Club and a further rural residential subdivision.

ZBA Settlement

17In support of the Revised ZBA, Ms. Chandler affirmed that the Revised ZBA has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“COP”) including the Village of Greely Secondary Plan, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. Ms. Chandler’s opinions regarding the Revised ZBA were supported by Ms. McWilliams.

18The Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised ZBA attached hereto as Schedule 1 meets all applicable legislative tests, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. The Tribunal therefore approves the Revised ZBA in accordance with the Tribunal’s Order at paragraph [125], below.

19Ms. Chandler proffered that Conditions 7, 9, and 72 all relate to the Revised ZBA and that the Parties agree those conditions will be cleared following the approval and enactment of the Revised ZBA. Accordingly, the Tribunal hereby approves Conditions 7, 9, and 72 as proposed by the City.

Legislative Tests: Contested Draft Plan Conditions

20Section 51(56) of the Planning Act provides that, on an appeal under subsection (43), as is the case at hand, the Tribunal shall determine the question as to the conditions appealed to it:

Powers

(56) On an appeal under subsection (34) or (39), the Tribunal may make any decision that the approval authority could have made on the application and on an appeal under subsection (43) or (48) shall determine the question as to the conditions appealed to it.

21That question is one of reasonableness, as set out in s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, which provides the approval authority (in this case, the Tribunal) the power to impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision.

22The test of reasonableness established in case law, originally set out in Taylor v Guelph (City), 1998 O.M.B.D. No. 869 and referenced in Jock River Farms Ltd. v Ottawa-Carleton (Regional Municipality), 1999 O.M.B.D. No. 864 (“Jock River Farms”), is fourfold, such that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision are reasonable, relevant, necessary and equal. As was the finding in Jock River Farms, s. 51(25) of the Planning Act compels the Tribunal to consider the link between any proposed condition and the actual development being proposed.

23The City’s counsel submits that what the City is seeking to do in respect of the Draft Plan is what it would do in respect of any similarly situated subdivision in the City. It is therefore the City’s position that the Conditions are reasonable, relevant, necessary and equal, noting that the same or similar conditions have been previously imposed by the Tribunal for other developments.

24The Appellant’s counsel argues that just because a Condition may be a City standard and has been imposed on others does not automatically make it reasonable for the Subject Lands. Rather, each Condition must have regard for the nature of the proposed development in this instance.

Issue 1: Stormwater Management

Background

25As detailed in a Catchment Divide Analysis & LiDAR Data Review prepared by JFSA (p. 128, Exhibit 3), updated site-specific survey and LiDAR topographic data demonstrates that there are three sub-watersheds on the Subject Lands, all of which currently flow west and outlet to the Grey’s Creek Municipal Drain (“Grey’s Creek MD”).

26Following development of the Subject Lands, the westerly flow of surface water towards the Grey’s Creek MD will be maintained and controlled via two SWM ponds: One located to the south of the central Osgoode Nature Reserve (“Central Pond”); and the other located along the western boundary of the Subject Lands, south of a proposed municipal park and wildlife corridor (“West Pond”).

27During rainfall events, water from the Central Pond will be slowly directed to the West Pond through a culvert on the Subject Lands before flowing further west, off the Subject Lands, along an existing drainage channel approved through the registered plan of subdivision and associated Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”) for the neighbouring Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision. Water in the drainage channel is directed to a SWM pond on the Emerald Links Phase 3 lands before entering the municipal drainage system via the Grey’s Creek MD.

28The Emerald Links Phase 3 drainage corridor was designed and approved to accommodate existing flows from the upstream external catchment area that includes the Subject Lands, thus maintaining existing watershed boundaries. No physical changes are required to the Subject Lands to maintain the westerly directional flow.

29There is no dispute between the Parties that pre- and post-development flows will ultimately outlet to the Grey’s Creek MD. However, the City’s existing watershed mapping of municipal drainage assessment areas does not accurately reflect that reality. Rather, the existing municipal watershed mapping, prepared in 1972 and updated in 1990, incorrectly suggests that stormwater on the Subject Lands flows both east and west into two different municipal drains: The Grey’s Creek MD to the west; and the Osgoode Gardens Cedar Acres Municipal Drain (“Osgoode MD”) to the east.

30Accordingly, the municipal drainage mapping needs to be updated to accurately reflect the catchment area divide between the two municipal drains for the purposes of assessing costs associated with the benefits and liabilities for each parcel of land utilising the respective drainage works. That process requires an inspection and assessment from a municipally appointed engineer, pursuant to ss. 65(3) and (4) of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, as amended (“Drainage Act”). Those sections pertain to changes in municipal drainage assessments resulting from the connection and disconnection of lands assessed for drainage works:

Subsequent connection to drainage works, etc.

(3) If an owner of land that is not assessed for a drainage works subsequently connects the land with the drainage works for the purpose of drainage, or if the nature or extent of the use of a drainage works by land assessed for the drainage works is subsequently altered, the clerk of the local municipality in which the land is situate shall instruct an engineer in writing to inspect the land and assess it for a just proportion of the drainage works, taking into account any compensation paid to the owner of the land in respect of the drainage works. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 1, s. 2 (26).

Subsequent disconnection from drainage works

(4) If an owner of land that is assessed for a drainage works subsequently disconnects the land from the drainage works, the clerk of the local municipality in which the land is situate shall instruct an engineer in writing to inspect the land and determine the amount by which the assessment of the land should change. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 1, s. 2 (26).

31The Appellant submitted requests to the City to obtain engineering reports in support of the administrative connection and disconnection of the Subject Lands to the Grey’s Creek MD from the Osgoode MD (pp. 147-148 & 150-151, Exhibit 3) on March 15, 2022. On July 7, 2022, Ms. Chandler received an email from City staff confirming that the City has “sufficient information to proceed to the appointment of the Drainge [sic] Engineer” (p. 1199, Exhibit 3).

32In addition to the required drainage assessment mapping change made pursuant to the Drainage Act, the Parties agree that two ECAs (one for private and one for public SWM infrastructure) are required from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended (“EPA”). Once issued, the ECAs will permit the conveyance of stormwater runoff to and between public and private stormwater infrastructure (e.g., swales, ditches, culverts and retention ponds), and ensure that same will be designed and monitored in accordance with municipal and provincial guidelines to protect human health and the natural environment.

Proposed SWM Conditions

33The City’s proposed Conditions 1, 5, 102, and 104 pertain to the commencement of site related works and building permit issuance, generally requiring the Appellant to first demonstrate that there is adequate storm conveyance and that all necessary municipal and provincial permits, including ECAs, have been obtained.

34Similarly, Conditions 87, 88, and 97 require the submission of stormwater reports consistent with applicable standards, specifications and guidelines prior to the commencement of any works in any phase of the subdivision.

35The Tribunal notes that the Appellant has not proposed alternative language to Conditions 5, 102, or 104.

36The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant’s proposed language for Conditions 87, 88, and 97 is not fundamentally different than the City’s language. Rather, the Appellant’s language reflects their position that Conditions 87, 88, and 97 have been met, as demonstrated by JFSA’s Emerald Subdivision SWM Report dated December 27, 2024, as amended on January 13, 2025 (“December SWM Report”), and should therefore be updated to acknowledge same, recognising that the required works must implement the results of the December SWM Report.

37The fundamental point of contention between the Parties pertains to the City’s interpretation of Condition 1, which states the following:

Prior to the issuance of a Commence Work Notification, the Owner shall obtain such permits as may be required from Municipal or Provincial authorities and shall file copies thereof with the General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Department.

The City’s Position

38The City contends that the required permits referenced in Condition 1 include approval of the Appellant’s requested changes in assessment made pursuant to ss. 65(3) and (4) of the Drainage Act. Those changes, the City submits, are required to provide the Appellant with a legal right to discharge stormwater from the eastern portion of the Subject Lands to the Grey’s Creek MD.

39The City’s position in that regard is twofold: (1) the Appellant has not received approval from City Council to disconnect from the Osgoode MD and to connect to the Grey’s Creek MD for the eastern portion of the Subject Lands; and (2) the Appellant does not yet have proof of legal and sufficient outlet for the proposed SWM and drainage systems on the Subject Lands.

40To support their position, the City directed the Tribunal to s. 65(5) of the Drainage Act, which states:

Restriction on connection or disconnection

(5) No person shall connect or disconnect from drainage works without the approval of the council of the municipality.

41The Tribunal was further directed to policy 4.7.1.8 of the COP, which states:

8. As a condition of Site Plan Control approval or draft plan of subdivision approval, proof of legal and sufficient outlet for proposed stormwater management and drainage systems will be required and satisfied prior to the early servicing or registration, whichever comes first.

(p. 487, Exhibit 2)

42Supplementary to the above COP policy is s. 4.3.8 of the City’s Infrastructure Master Plan (Exhibit 16), which describes legal stormwater outlets as follows:

4.3.8 Legal Stormwater Outlets

Under Ontario’s Drainage Act, a municipal drain may be established to provide legal outlet for lands requiring drainage. Legal stormwater outlet to a municipal drain exists for those lands that have been assessed for outlet to the drain. A sufficient outlet is defined in the Drainage Act as “a point at which water can be discharged safely so that it will do no damage to lands or roads”.

(emphasis added, p. 6, Exhibit 16)

43Using the definition of legal stormwater outlets from the Infrastructure Master Plan, above (while not defined by municipal by-law, policy, or provincial statute), it is the City’s position that a legal stormwater outlet to the Grey’s Creek MD does not exist for the eastern portion of the Subject Lands as those lands have not been assessed for outlet to the Grey’s Creek MD. Rather, those lands are legally permitted to outlet to the Osgood MD, as depicted on the municipal drainage mapping last updated in 1990.

44The City further contends that the required ECA applications cannot be submitted to the MECP for approval, nor can any of the related Conditions referenced above be cleared, until the Drainage Act process is complete as the outcome of that process may require changes to the supporting SWM modelling, reports or system. In other words, it is the City’s position that Condition 1 requires a sequencing of events before a Commence Work Notification can be issued, beginning with Drainage Act approval, followed by ECA submission and issuance, and then the assessment and clearing of related conditions.

The Appellant’s Position

45The Appellant contends that it is not reasonable for the City to interpret Condition 1 as requiring approvals under s. 65 of the Drainage Act, nor has the City presented any evidence to support such an interpretation.

46The Appellant agrees that the related Conditions (including the issuance of ECAs required by Condition 104) are reasonable and relevant, having regard to the nature of the proposed development. However, it is their position that while the requirements of the Drainage Act must be adhered to, it is neither reasonable, relevant, necessary nor equal to require completion of same as a condition of approval, nor as a prerequisite to other Conditions or processes advancing.

47The Appellant contends that the Drainage Act approvals pertain only to the correction of an administrative mapping error and not the physical connection or disconnection of the Subject Lands to drainage works. While Condition 1 requires the Appellant to “obtain such permits” as may be required prior to the issuance of a Commence Work Notification, Ms. Chandler proffered that no permits are required nor issued under the Drainage Act to enable the required mapping change. As demonstrated by Messrs. Burnett and Payer, the Appellant is not proposing to divert stormwater from one existing municipal drain to another. Stormwater from the entirety of the Subject Lands has, is currently, and will continue to flow westerly to the Grey’s Creek MD, without requiring modifications to existing drainage outlets or permits issued pursuant to the Drainage Act.

48The Appellant further contends that City Council has, in fact, approved the current stormwater flows for the Subject Lands by virtue of the approved construction of drainage works, registration, and development of the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision, which relied on reports demonstrating that stormwater from the Subject Lands flows across the Emerald Links Phase 3 lands and into the Grey’s Creek MD, requiring an update to the City’s drainage area assessment mapping.

49To that end, the Tribunal was directed to a SWM and Pond Design Brief prepared for the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision, dated December 2016 (“Emerald Links SWM Report”, p. 1759, Exhibit 3). The Emerald Links SWM Report recognises that stormwater from the Subject Lands discharges to the Grey’s Creek MD. It further acknowledges that the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision will alter the nature of its own on-site drainage and require physical alterations to existing drainage works, including multiple new outlets, a road crossing by culvert, and construction of the aforementioned drainage channel. Accordingly, and as stated on p. 1767 of Exhibit 3, the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision required the appointment of an engineer and approvals pursuant to the Drainage Act. The City initially recommended the appointment of an engineer in July 2017, followed by a second recommendation to appoint a different engineer seven years later in July 2024.

50Notwithstanding the required Drainage Act approvals and appointments of an engineer for the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision, witnesses from both Parties acknowledged that, at the time of the Hearing, no such Drainage Act approvals had been granted despite the approved construction of works, registration by the City, and development of the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision.

51Mr. Whittaker agreed that Drainage Act approvals are still outstanding for the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision. He further agreed that since the subdivision has been built, an ECA must already be approved and in place. In fact, it was demonstrated to the Tribunal that Mr. Whittaker himself authored and signed a request to the MECP for review and approval of an ECA application for the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision, dated March 21, 2017 – several months before the City first recommended the appointment of an engineer in July 2017. The ECA was then issued by the MECP on October 3, 2017, prior to the registration of the subdivision on August 4, 2020.

52At least one other example of an ECA being issued under Mr. Whittaker’s recommendation prior to the appointment of an engineer (and therefore before the granting of Drainage Act approvals) was provided to the Tribunal, counter to the City’s submission that Drainage Act approvals must take place before ECAs can be submitted to and issued by the MECP.

53The Appellant submits that the above evidence proves there is no logical basis for the City’s position that approval of the Appellant’s Drainage Act applications is a reasonable, relevant, necessary or equal condition, nor that the applications must be approved before the ECAs can be submitted or other related Conditions can be cleared to enable the commencement of works and registration of the Draft Plan. If the City’s interpretation of Condition 1 is accepted, the Appellant submits, it could lead to an unreasonable delay of works on the Subject Lands, as evidenced by the considerable and ongoing lapse of time pertaining to the Emerald Links Phase 3 Drainage Act approvals process.

54With respect to the two ECAs required for the proposed subdivision, Mr. Whittaker agreed that, except for the required Drainage Act approvals, the City’s position is that the ECA applications can be submitted to the MECP and approved.

55Mr. Whittaker further agreed that the City has accepted the Appellant’s SWM reports and related modelling. The SWM solution for the Subject Lands has also been accepted by the South Nation Conservation Authority, as proffered by Mr. Payer.

56Mr. Burnett proffered that the December SWM Report and related modelling have been prepared in accordance with relevant standards, specifications and guidelines using conservative estimates, and demonstrate that the SWM solution for the Subject Lands is not only in alignment with the assumptions made by the Emerald Links SWM Report, but exceed the relevant performance metrics for stormwater flows. Post development flows from the Subject Lands into the Grey’s Creek MD will be substantially less than pre-development flows, thereby not exacerbating downstream erosion or flooding to the Grey’s Creek MD. In Mr. Burnett’s opinion, the SWM solution proposed for the Subject Lands therefore meets the Drainage Act definition of “sufficient outlet” and the outcome of the Drainage Act process to change the outdated assessment mapping will have no bearing on the SWM system designed for the Subject Lands.

57The Tribunal notes that while neither Messrs. Burnett nor Payer are municipally appointed engineers pursuant to the Drainage Act, it was the evidence of Mr. Payer that a “drainage engineer” (as referred to by the City throughout the Hearing) and a civil engineer are one in the same. Unlike Mr. Burnett’s additional credentials in hydraulic modelling that distinguish him as a water resources engineer (and the only expert at the Hearing qualified to conduct hydraulic modelling) in addition to his qualifications as a civil engineer, it is Mr. Payer’s evidence that no additional certifications or qualifications are required for a civil engineer to perform the duties of a drainage engineer. To that end, the Tribunal further notes that the Drainage Act does not refer to nor specify a requirement for a “drainage engineer”, which supports Mr. Payer’s testimony.

Findings

58The Tribunal relies on the submissions of the Parties that a subsequent connection to and disconnection from drainage works pursuant to ss. 65(3) and (4) are required to authorise the boundary change on the City’s municipal drainage assessment mapping. A plain reading of those subsections suggests that, when a subsequent connection or disconnection of drainage works occurs, the clerk of the local municipality in which the land is situate shall instruct an engineer in writing to inspect the land for assessment. The Tribunal was informed by the City that an engineer has recently been appointed to do just that.

59The Tribunal further accepts that, pursuant to s. 65(5) of the Drainage Act, City Council must approve the connection and disconnection of the eastern portion of the Subject Lands to and from the Grey’s Creek MD and the Osgoode MD, respectively. That much was not disputed between the Parties.

60The issue before the Tribunal is not about the requirements of the Drainage Act, but whether the City’s proposed Conditions are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed development.

61To that end, the Tribunal finds that a plain reading of Condition 1 is reasonable. The Appellant ought to obtain such permits as may be required from municipal or provincial authorities prior to the issuance of a Commence Work Notification. However, the Tribunal does not find that the City’s interpretation and proposed implementation of Condition 1 is reasonable, relevant, necessary or equal.

62The Tribunal is not persuaded that authorisation under the Drainage Act for the required assessment area mapping change is a reasonable or relevant prerequisite to the issuance of ECAs or commencement of works in relation to the proposed development. To the contrary, it was demonstrated to the Tribunal that Mr. Whittaker himself has submitted and recommended approval of ECAs, which in turn were granted by the MECP, prior to fulfilment of required Drainage Act processes – including for the adjacent Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision that has been registered and developed with physical alterations to existing drainage works absent any Drainage Act approvals.

63The Tribunal finds that the City’s interpretation of Condition 1 applies a much stricter approach for the Subject Lands that is neither reasonable nor equitable, particularly given the seemingly ambiguous and lengthy Drainage Act approvals process. While an engineer has been appointed by the City to conduct the required assessments, the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that such an appointment is not a reliable gauge of time with respect to the completion of same. To hold the Appellant to a different standard than the adjacent subdivision, particularly when no physical alterations to drainage works are required, does not meet the tests of being reasonable, necessary or equal. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in this instance, the Drainage Act, Planning Act, and EPA processes can unfold concurrently.

64With respect to COP policy 4.7.1.8, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the language of Condition 1 reflects the implementation of same. Condition 1 relates to the commencement of works in relation to required permits, not a requirement for proof of legal and sufficient outlet. In any event, the Tribunal is not convinced that a Condition explicitly reflecting the language of policy 4.7.1.8 is necessary in this instance. There is also no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the implementation of policy 4.7.1.8 by way of Condition ought to prevent the advancement of other Conditions.

65Regarding Conditions 87, 88, and 97, the evidence before the Tribunal is that both the South Nation Conservation Authority and City staff are satisfied that the Appellant’s SWM solution, modelling, and reports are fit for approval and implementation. It is only the administrative process pursuant to the Drainage Act that has prevented staff from advancing Conditions related thereto. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the Appellant’s proposed Conditions 87, 88, and 97 are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed development.

66Accordingly, the Tribunal approves the City’s proposed Conditions 5, 102, and 104 and the Appellant’s proposed Conditions 1, 87, 88, and 97.

Issue 2: Parkland Dedication

Issue 2a: Wildlife Corridor

67The approved Draft Plan abuts the Osgoode Nature Reserve on the east and west with residential lots, and to the south by the proposed private Central Pond.

68At the southwest corner of the Osgoode Nature Reserve, the Draft Plan provides for a wildlife corridor – bisected by the extension of Fox Valley Road – connecting the Osgoode Nature Reserve to Green Jacket Park: A five-acre municipal park to the west of the Subject Lands in the adjacent Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision. To the immediate north of the wildlife corridor, west of the Fox Valley Road extension, a municipal park is planned on the Subject Lands abutting the eastern boundary of Green Jacket Park.

69The Appellant submits that the wildlife corridor will be dedicated to the City and can support a pedestrian pathway that could provide a passive recreational opportunity on the Subject Lands. It is therefore the Appellant’s position that the wildlife corridor should contribute to the calculation of on-site parkland dedication.

70The City submits that the wildlife corridor is intended to provide safe passage for animals – particularly woodland amphibians – to traverse the Subject Lands. The corridor is not, in the City’s submission, programmable park space nor intended for passive recreation, and therefore should not be considered or credited as parkland.

71To that end, the Revised ZBA agreed to by the Parties zones the wildlife corridor with the O1R subzone, which permits only: (1) environmental preserve and educational area; and (2) forestry operation. As conceded by Ms. Chandler, while a park is a permitted use in the O1 zone, it is explicitly not a permitted use in the O1R subzone.

72Notwithstanding the OR1 zoning, the Tribunal was directed to examples of pathways located in the O1R subzone elsewhere in the City, which supported Mr. Paulusse’s evidence that a pedestrian pathway could be accommodated in the wildlife corridor while maintaining its ecological function.

73Those examples were differentiated by Mr. Hayley, who proffered that while pathways and environmental features often coexist, the Subject Lands hold environmental significance, including identified significant amphibian habitat. While not a significant habitat itself, the wildlife corridor contributes to the function of significant woodlands and habitats on the Subject Lands and is a mitigating measure to offset the negative ecological impacts of the proposed development, including on significant wetlands in the northeast of the Subject Lands that will be directly affected by residential lots and the proposed street network. All of the provided examples of pathways in the OR1 zone, Mr. Hayley proffered, held no such relevance.

74Mr. Hayley’s opinions aligned with those of Mr. Gauthier, who noted that while woodland parks are indeed a type of park classification in the City, wooded parks meant for passive recreation are distinct from wooded areas that are intended to serve an ecological function, such as wildlife migration.

75The Tribunal notes that early versions of the proposed subdivision showed trail linkages through the blocks that have since become the wildlife corridor. However, those diagrams identified the blocks as the only proposed park blocks on the Subject Lands, rather than a wildlife corridor. The expansion and relocation of the public park to the north enables the inclusion of an undisturbed wildlife corridor. That, Mr. Hayley proffered, is the preferred approach, with trail linkages accommodated on the park lands as opposed to the wildlife corridor.

76Counter to Mr. Hayley’s opinion in that regard, the Appellant directed the Tribunal to a conceptual diagram for the neighbouring Green Jacket Park, which shows a pedestrian loop extending from the Emerald Links Phase 3 lands onto the Subject Lands. When overlayed on the approved Draft Plan, part of the conceptual pedestrian loop encroaches on the northern extent of the wildlife corridor. The Tribunal is not convinced that such an overlay exercise demonstrates that the City intends to use the wildlife corridor for recreational purposes. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that park amenities, including pedestrian pathways linking the neighbouring subdivisions, can be appropriately planned and located by the City to meet the needs of all inhabitants of the local community – human or otherwise.

Issue 2b: Pedestrian Pathways

77At the southeast corner of the Osgoode Nature Reserve, the subdivision provides for two pedestrian pathways: One running east-west connecting the nature reserve and the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot; and one running north-south connecting the nature reserve to an existing pedestrian pathway in the adjacent Greely West subdivision to the south of the Subject Lands. Together, the pathways form Blocks 77, 78, and 79 of the Draft Plan.

78The Appellant submits that the pathways (specifically Blocks 77 and 79) are intended for passive recreation opportunities and should therefore be credited as parkland dedication.

79The City considers the pathways to be important transportation linkages, providing permeability through the planned lot fabric as part of the overall transportation network.

80In Ms. Chandler’s opinion, the pathways function as a recreational amenity between park blocks, rather than as an active transportation corridor. She directed the Tribunal to the City’s Park Development Manual (p. 1393, Exhibit 2), which sets out parkland dedication requirements and park typologies. The Manual classifies two pathway typologies found within parks: Recreation Paths and Nature Trails. Those typologies, she proffered, represent recreational amenities and should apply to Blocks 77 and 79 (and be counted towards parkland dedication), whereas Block 78 serves as a transportation linkage that connects adjacent subdivisions (and should not be counted towards parkland dedication).

81In Mr. Gauthier’s opinion, both streets and pedestrian pathways are meant for connectivity, such as connecting streets with streets, streets with school sites, and streets with parks. Pedestrian pathways contribute to circulation within a subdivision so that residents can access parks and amenities, but they do not themselves constitute parkland nor are they suitable as linear parks given their lack of programmability.

82To that end, Ms. McWilliams directed the Tribunal to s. 2.3 of the City’s Park Development Manual, which states the following:

The Developer is responsible for all pathway connections to park blocks, and stormwater pond blocks within the subdivision that link neighbourhoods and/or allow subdivisions to be connected by pedestrian routes. These connections do not comprise part of parkland dedication.

(emphasis added, p. 1408, Exhibit 2)

83While the Tribunal appreciates that the Park Development Manual is a guiding document and not a by-law or policy, it does set out clear expectations that pathway connections, including those proposed for the Subject Lands, do not comprise part of parkland dedication.

84The Tribunal was further directed to the Appellant’s Planning Rationale Report for the applications (p. 86, Exhibit 3), which states that, in keeping with the rural character of Greely, sidewalks are not provided on the Subject Lands. Rather, pedestrian pathways are proposed to run through the development and link external and internal open space features for public access. Accordingly, the pedestrian pathways serve as the only dedicated pedestrian infrastructure on the Subject Lands.

Issue 2c: Park Development Fee

85City By-law No. 2024-33 (p. 670, Exhibit 2) requires that, in lieu of development charges, new developments in rural and suburban areas must pay a rural park development fee to permit the construction and programming of local parks, which the City considers to be a local service.

86The Appellant does not take issue with the park development fee, but does submit that, given they are required to perform certain works such as tree clearing and trail construction for the aforementioned pedestrian pathways, the park development fee that the Appellant is required to pay should be reduced by the costs associated with those additional works.

87The City submits that the park development fee is intended to fund the development of local parks, rather than pedestrian pathways serving an active transportation function.

88The City’s position was supported by Mr. Gauthier, who proffered that cash-in-lieu of parkland is used by the City to purchase land for parks, whereas the park development fee is used to build the programming requirements of same. Should the pedestrian pathways be considered parkland and/or the park development fee be allocated to their construction, less money will be available to build park amenities (e.g., play structures) in the proposed local park.

Findings

89With respect to Issue 2a concerning the wildlife corridor, the Tribunal turns to the agreed upon zoning and its inherent prohibition of parks as a permitted use, the intended ecological function of the wildlife corridor, and the mitigative nature of same, and does not find it reasonable or appropriate to award parkland dedication credits for the corridor.

90With respect to Issues 2b and 2c concerning the pedestrian pathways and application of the rural park development fee, the Tribunal agrees with the City’s position in both regards and does not find it reasonable or appropriate to allocate parkland dedication credits nor the park development fee to the construction of same. The pathways are intended for circulation from within and beyond the Subject Lands and serve a transportation function. None of the local streets will be equipped with sidewalks, thereby increasing the need for pedestrian amenities for those who choose to travel by foot. The Tribunal finds that the clearing of trees and development of lands for the purposes of pedestrian transportation is akin to doing so for vehicular transportation.

91The Tribunal therefore finds that Conditions 38, 39, 41, and 66 as proposed by the City are reasonable, relevant, necessary and equitable, and are hereby approved.

Issue 3: Fencing

92There are two areas of disagreement with respect to how the subdivision should be fenced:

1. The City proposes to include fencing along the west and east lot lines of the Osgoode Nature Reserve, at the rear of the adjacent residential lots, and along the west lot line of the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot (together, the “Woodlot Fencing”). The Appellant submits that this is inappropriate due to ecological impacts.

2. The City further proposes that all fences on the Subject Lands are to be exclusively chain link, rather than a mix of chain link, page wire, and/or post and rail fencing. The Appellant submits that this runs counter to the existing rural context and is inconsistent with fencing plans for other subdivisions in and adjacent to the Village of Greely.

93The Appellant prepared and submitted two opposing fencing plans to the Tribunal. The first demonstrates what fencing on the Subject Lands could look like should the City’s Conditions be approved (“City Fencing Plan”, p. 857, Exhibit 3). It has been attached hereto as Schedule 3. The second represents the Appellant’s proposed alternative plan (p. 859, Exhibit 3), which removes the Woodlot Fencing on the east and west boundaries of the Osgoode Nature Reserve and the west boundary of the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot. It further replaces sections of fencing along the pedestrian pathways with page wire fencing, maintaining chain link adjacent to the Central Pond along Block 76 and along the entirety of Block 77 (connecting to the Greely West subdivision to the south).

94The Parties agree that chain link fencing is appropriate adjacent to the SWM ponds, including along the south boundary of the Osgoode Nature Reserve, for the purposes of public safety. However, the Appellant submits, the remaining fencing along the nature reserve and woodlot is not needed for safety reasons and is undesirable and unwarranted for ecological reasons.

95To that end, Mr. Paulusse proffered that the construction and maintenance of the Woodlot Fencing will require disturbances, including clearing existing trees, which will likely result in the creation of preferential wildlife migration routes that: (1) are contrary to the planned wildlife corridor; and (2) will increase access to the interior of the woodlots by invasive species and subsidised urban predators (e.g., cats and racoons). With respect to the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot, Mr. Paulusse proffered that the proposed fencing would also need to cross an existing watercourse, thereby creating an additional disturbance.

96Both Mr. Paulusse and Ms. Chandler proffered that the collective outcomes of the City Fencing Plan run contrary to the City’s guidelines that the design and placement of fencing should not interrupt ecological functions. Accordingly, it was their collective opinion that the installation of the Woodlot Fencing is unreasonable. Ms. Chandler further proffered that, in her opinion, all fencing could be removed from the proposed subdivision given the rural nature of the Subject Lands and proposed development.

97Notwithstanding their respective opinions in that regard, both Mr. Paulusse and Ms. Chandler did proffer that a barrier between public and private lands may be appropriate, but an alternative to chain link fencing, such as post and rail fencing (sometimes referred to as “split post” or “stick and post”), is a better alternative to chain link as it provides a visual barrier without the physical constraints of chain link. If the delineation between public and private lands is a concern to the City, Ms. Chandler proffered, that concern should be balanced with other considerations and applied on a contextual and discretionary basis.

98The Tribunal was directed to several photographs submitted by the Appellant (p. 87, Exhibit 4) showing a range of approved fencing types throughout the Village of Greely, including page wire, post and rail, and chain link, along municipal parks and pedestrian pathways. To the immediate west, the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision utilises page wire fencing around Green Jacket Park with no chain link used anywhere in the subdivision.

99Ms. McWilliams proffered that the Emerald Links Phase 3 subdivision utilises page wire as those lands are in the City’s Rural Area rather than within the Village of Greely Settlement Area. She further proffered that chain link fencing has a longer lifecycle, which assists with long-term maintenance and replacement costs, and is the City’s current standard on a go-forward basis. To that end, s. 2.3 of the Park Development Manual summarises the requirements that developers must satisfy when providing a park block to the City, including:

A 1.5m chain link fence, without gates, adjacent to residential lots, ravine lands and other land uses as required. The location of fencing adjacent to hazard lands is to be determined by the City in consultation with the Conservation Authority/Partners;

(p. 1408, Exhibit 2)

100The Tribunal notes that the above requirement, while not a policy or by-law provision, applies when developers provide park blocks to the City. Accordingly, the proposed park block is fenced with chain link in both the City’s and the Appellant’s proposed fencing plans. However, neither the Osgoode Nature Reserve nor the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot are being provided to the City by the Appellant. Further, the Tribunal recognises the unique context of same as ecological preserves, unintended for programming, that are bounded by deep residential lots. Those lots, in turn, are each subject to environmental preservation requirements that will assist with mitigating unintended human use of public lands.

101Part of maintaining the ecological integrity of the nature reserve and woodlot is ensuring that adjacent homeowners do not appropriate – whether intentionally or unintentionally – lands in the woodlot as part of their property. While the requirements for tree canopy coverage on the rear half of the adjoining lots will certainly contribute to that objective, the Tribunal finds it reasonable, relevant and necessary to demarcate the boundaries between public and private lands with a fence. However, the Tribunal does not accept the City’s argument that such fencing must be chain link, nor does the Tribunal find that such a requirement is equitable or necessary given the site-specific and broader area context, being that of a rural residential, highly naturalised settlement area that utilises a range of fencing types.

102Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the conciliatory evidence of Mr. Paulusse and Ms. Chandler that a balance of objectives ought to be considered and that an alternative form of Woodlot Fencing can achieve the intended effects desired by the City while reducing ecological impacts and responding to the local context.

103The Tribunal therefore orders that Conditions 30, 31 and 50, and the City Fencing Plan attached hereto as Schedule 3, be modified to reflect a requirement for page wire fencing for the Woodlot Fencing, being the east and west boundaries of the Osgoode Nature Reserve and the west boundary of the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot. In all other regards, the Tribunal finds that the City Fencing Plan is reasonable, relevant, necessary and equitable.

Issue 4: Mechanisms to Secure Agreed Upon Work

Issue 4a: Well Drilling

104Each well on the Subject Lands must be cased with a steel barrier surrounded by either cement or clay to a depth of 60 m, such that water cannot enter the well from within 60 m of the surface, thereby ensuring that future residents have access to cleaner groundwater.

105There is no dispute between the Parties that the well casing depth is appropriate to ensure that water supply on the Subject Lands will be of sufficient quality and quantity for future residents. What is in dispute is the City’s approach to verifying that the wells have been dug and cased according to City standards, whereby the City intends to impose a 0.3 m reserve on each lot to be removed only once a Well Inspection Report (often referred to as a “well certificate” or “well compliance certificate”), demonstrating that the well has been constructed in compliance with all applicable standards, is provided to the City.

106According to Mr. Anderson, this is the first time in the Village of Greely that the City has proposed such an approach. The primary issue, both he and Ms. Lapierre proffered, is that applications to lift the reserves from each lot require an onerous and expensive process that must be repeated for each lot. The alternative, they proffered, is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that all requirements for a Well Inspection Report are in the agreement of purchase and sale, registered on title, and/or subject to restrictive covenants, such that compliance with the City’s standards must be met prior to the return of securities associated with each lot.

107The City’s counter argument, which the Tribunal accepts, is that the City is not subject to the agreements of purchase and sale nor private covenants between future landowners and the developer. Rather, a 0.3 m reserve conveyed to the City will make absolutely certain that when a well is drilled and cased, the City will be provided with a Well Inspection Report demonstrating sufficiency. That, in turn, will legally require the City to lift the reserve.

108Paramount to the Tribunal’s findings on this matter was the evidence of Mr. Kearney, whose 40 years of experience in hydrogeology and geosciences greatly assisted the Tribunal in understanding both the geology of the Subject Lands and the importance of the City’s proposed approach to ensuring long-term water quality for future residents.

109The Subject Lands rest on the Nepean aquifer, which is a deep aquifer capable of providing a safe water supply. However, in past developments on the Nepean aquifer that share the same geology as the Subject Lands, contaminant levels (indicated by the presence of chloride) in 25 private wells have increased from a range of 2 to 79 milligrams per litre (“mg/L”) in 2007 to a range of 25 to 516 mg/L in 2021. Mr. Kearney explained that, under Ontario Regulation, a well is considered mineralised if contaminant levels exceed 500 mg/L – a condition typically requiring the immediate abandonment of the well.

110The consequences to an improperly dug well on the Subject Lands are therefore very serious in Mr. Kearney’s opinion, requiring a clear standard of care to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken by the Appellant and the City with regards to well water quality and public safety.

111The above data, Mr. Kearney proffered, supports the City’s approach to using a 0.3 m reserve for each lot to ensure that every private well is constructed in accordance with the approved hydrogeological report recommending a 60 m well casing. While other approaches have been used in the past, he proffered, the site-specific conditions of the Subject Lands warrant a robust mechanism to ensure future residents have a safe water supply over the long term. With a 0.3 m reserve in place, a building permit cannot be obtained until the City has reviewed the Well Inspection Report and lifted the reserve, protecting both the private landowners and the groundwater to ensure that it remains a safe source of drinking water for the community. That, he proffered, aligns with COP policy 4.7.2.18, which states the following:

18. As a condition of approval, development on private wells must be supported by a satisfactory well inspection report in conjunction with the building permit process.

(p. 492, Exhibit 2)

112The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Kearney and finds that Conditions 105 and 112 as proposed by the City are reasonable, relevant, necessary and equitable, and are hereby approved.

Issue 4b: Registration of Subdivision

113The Parties agree that the proposed subdivision should be phased such that each phase contains no more than 40 lots. The phased approach will ensure that the operation of wells and private sewage systems in the first phase are satisfactory prior to the commencement of subsequent phases.

114The City’s proposed Condition 109 ties the registration of the subdivision to the phasing, whereby a maximum of 40 lots can be registered at a time. Following the successful completion of the servicing review study, the next phase of the subdivision can be registered.

115The Appellant, on the other hand, is proposing a 0.3 m reserve and an inhibiting order on all lots beyond the first phase so that the entire subdivision can be registered at once, but no dealings can be done regarding the second phase until the necessary studies are complete and the reserves are transferred back to the Appellant, such that the lot in its entirety can be sold. The Appellant submits that the approach has been used successfully in prior subdivisions in the Village of Greely, with the City’s consent, which prevents the duplication of the subdivision registration process for a subdivision that has already been draft approved by the City.

116Fundamental to the City’s proposed approach are COP policies 4.7.2.15 and 4.7.2.16, which state in part:

15. As part of a complete application where development is proposed on the basis of private individual services, the City will require sufficient information with the application to assess the likelihood that:

a) Sufficient quantity of groundwater exists on site to service the development;

b) A water well can be constructed on the proposed lot(s) that will not be impacted by identified potential sources of groundwater contamination in the area;

c) The quality of the groundwater meets or exceeds the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines;

d) The operation of the on-site wastewater system on the new lot(s) will not adversely impact on a well to be constructed on the proposed lot(s) and on the wells of neighbouring properties; and

e) The development is within the reserve capacity of the municipal sewage system for hauled sewage.

16. As a condition of draft approval for subdivisions on private individual services, registration may only proceed in phases of 40 lots or less. Registration of subsequent phases may only proceed based on a monitoring report confirming the continued function of previous phases of development consistent with Policy 15) above.

(emphasis added, p. 491, Exhibit 2)

117Ms. McWilliams proffered that Condition 109, as drafted by the City, implements policy 4.7.2.16, which together ensure that the private wells and septic systems constructed in the first phase of development meet all applicable standards and that there is adequate reserve capacity for hauled sewage at the City’s waste treatment facility prior to subsequent phases/registrations proceeding. She further proffered that while the previous COP policy language permitted multiple 40-lot phases within a single registration (see former policy 4.4.2.1.2, p. 261, Exhibit 2), the City’s updated COP, which came into force on November 4, 2022, replaced that ability with the above requirement, limiting registration to 40 lots or less as a condition of draft approval for subdivisions on private individual services.

118Ms. Chandler acknowledged and agreed that the proposed subdivision is bound by the above policies.

119The Tribunal is not persuaded to approve revisions to Condition 109 to suit the Appellant’s preferred approach and is satisfied that Condition 109 as proposed by the City is reasonable, relevant, necessary and equitable. It is therefore approved as proposed by the City.

Issue 4c: Securities

120Condition 133 requires the posting of securities by the Appellant to ensure that each lot is graded according to the approved grading plans. While a defined amount is not listed in the Condition, the City’s current rate for lots that are 0.4 ha in size is $7,500 per lot, which is fully refunded to the developer following the completion of satisfactory grading.

121The Appellant submits that previous lots in the Village of Greely were only subject to a $2,500 security and is proposing to amend Condition 133 such that both lot grading and well compliance are subject to a single security in that amount.

122Ms. McWilliams opined that the Appellant’s approach to combining securities held for grading with securities held for well compliance is not appropriate as well compliance must be provided at the earliest stages of development, whereas grading occurs towards the end of the homebuilding process. She further proffered that prior securities of $2,500 in the Village of Greely were based on previous COP requirements, which related to a minimum lot size of 0.2 ha. The updated COP requires that rural residential lots be a minimum size of 0.4 ha. That, in combination with general time and inflation, the City submits, is why the fee has increased to $7,500 per lot.

123Perhaps more relevant to the City’s proposed Condition 133 is the Appellant’s somewhat atypical approach to lot development in the Village of Greely, including the Subject Lands. As proffered by Ms. McWilliams, developers are commonly responsible for all works, grading, and home construction (particularly in suburban developments), leading to the development of entire streets or blocks at the same time. In those instances, a City inspector can complete their due diligence for several lots at once. However, in the case at hand, the Appellant is responsible for communal works (e.g., streets and SWM), but lot grading is done by individual purchasers/home builders, requiring the City to inspect individual grading on a lot-by-lot basis before releasing securities. That, Ms. McWilliam’s proffered, requires a higher level of commitment from City staff, which is one factor influencing the increased security amount.

124The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. McWilliams and finds that Condition 133, as drafted by the City, is reasonable, relevant, necessary and equitable, and is hereby approved.

ORDER

125THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and By-law No. 2008-050 of the City of Ottawa is hereby amended as set out in Schedule 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorises the municipal clerk of the City of Ottawa to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes and to make such administrative modifications as required to recognise the Tribunal’s (rather than Council’s) approval and enactment of the by-law.

126THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 51(43) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and:

1. Conditions 5, 7, 9, 38, 39, 41, 66, 72, 102, 104, 105, 109, 112, and 133 as imposed by the City remain unchanged as set out in Schedule 2 to this Order;

2. Conditions 1, 87, 88, and 97 are amended in accordance with the Appellant’s proposed revisions as set out in Schedule 2 to this Order; and

3. Conditions 30, 31, and 50 are amended in accordance with the Appellant’s proposed revisions as set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, subject to the conditions being further modified such that all references to “the Fencing Plan dated December 26, 2024” are to be replaced with a reference to an updated fencing plan requiring page wire fencing along the east and west boundaries of the Osgoode Nature Reserve (at the rear of lots 18 to 21 and 54 to 58, inclusive) and the west boundary of the Osgoode Gardens Woodlot (at the rear of lots 45 to 48, inclusive). In all other locations, the updated fencing plan is to be consistent with Schedule 3 to this Order.

127The Tribunal may be spoken to if the Parties require assistance implementing any of the above Orders.

“S. Dixon”

s. dixon

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.

SCHEDULE 1