Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000934, OLT-25-000940
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2825085 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 25 residential units.
Reference Number: PE 24-01
Property Address: 12 and 20 Cobalt Street S
Municipality/UT: Perth East/Perth
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000934
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000934
OLT Case Name: 2825085 Ontario Inc. v. Perth (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2825085 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 25 residential units.
Reference Number: Z13-2024
Property Address: 12 and 20 Cobalt Street S
Municipality/UT: Perth East/Perth
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000940
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000940
OLT Case Name: 2825085 Ontario Inc. v. Perth East (Township)
Heard: April 2, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 2825085 Ontario Inc. | Jessica De Marinis |
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION and background
1This matter comes before the Tribunal as an uncontested hearing on the merits. No one appeared on behalf of the statutory municipal Parties, the Township of Perth East (“Township”) and County of Perth (“County”).
2The appeals arise following respective non-decisions by the Township and the County regarding applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”; the ZBA and DPS are collectively the “proposed draft instruments”) to facilitate the development of 25 residential units (as originally proposed) at 12 and 20 Cobalt Street (“Lands”).
The Lands
3The Lands are located at the current terminus of Cobalt Street South in the eastern portion of the Village of Milverton, south of Mill Street East and Gerber Drive, and north of Pugh Street. The Lands have a total area of approximately 0.9259 hectares (2.29 acres). 12 Cobalt Street South is currently vacant, while 20 Cobalt Street South contains a single detached dwelling and associated outbuildings, all of which are proposed to be removed. The surrounding area is composed of low-density residential land uses, primarily single detached dwellings.
4Cobalt Street South is a two-lane local street owned and maintained by the Township. A public sidewalk exists on the east side of the roadway. Full municipal services (sanitary, water, and storm) are provided within the roadway.
5The Lands are designated “Serviced Urban Area” in the County Official Plan (“County OP”) and are zoned “R1” in the Township’s Zoning By-law No. 30-1999. The “R1” zoning permits the use of the Lands for single detached dwellings on 15 metre (“m”) (minimum) wide lots. All abutting lands have the same land use designation. Zoning in the area is primarily “R1” with some lands having an “R2” and “R3” zoning designation.
The Proposed Development
6Since the original applications were made, the proposed draft instruments were revised following discussions with municipal staff. Of note, the revisions include a plan to terminate Cobalt Street in a cul-de-sac on the Lands (it was originally proposed to follow through to Pugh Street), provide for an Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 compliant sidewalk through to Pugh Street, introduce semi-detached dwellings, and reduce the overall number of units to 24. Now, the DPS proposes to subdivide the Lands into nine blocks, to be developed with a total of three semi-detached dwellings (total of six units) and 18 street-fronting townhouse units.
7The revised ZBA seeks a site specific “R3” zoning for the townhouse units and a site specific “R2” zoning for the semi-detached dwellings. The revised site specific zoning requests are now as follows:
Special Residential Zone 2 (R2-16), which would permit a minimum lot frontage of 8.3 m for a semi-detached dwelling unit on one block; and
Special Residential Zone 3 (R3-12), which would permit a minimum lot frontage of 5.9 m for each street-fronting townhouse unit, a minimum interior side yard width of 1.5 m, no required planting strip between the site specific “R3” zoning and the “R2” zoning, and tandem parking.
8As a result of recent amendments undertaken by the Township to By-law 30-1999, modifications originally proposed concerning lot coverage are no longer required.
9A County Planning Staff Report recommended approval of the proposed draft instruments.
Evidence and Analysis
10Uncontradicted evidence was provided by Scott J. Patterson (“Mr. Patterson”), duly qualified as an expert in land use planning.
11He testified that the proposed draft instruments have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, as he opined that the development is a well-designed built form on a property that has been identified for growth and development and represents an orderly and efficient development on full municipal services. The Tribunal accepts his opinion and finds same.
12With regards to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), Mr. Patterson opined that the proposed draft instruments would facilitate the efficient redevelopment of the Lands, located within a designated settlement area, identified as lands to accommodate development, and having access to existing municipal infrastructure and services.
13Further, he testified that the proposed development is consistent with policies of the PPS by:
Contributing to an appropriate range and mix of residential uses on lands identified for residential purposes;
Not contributing to environmental or public health and safety concerns;
Not preventing the efficient expansion of a settlement area;
Incorporating building practices that are inclusive and accessible;
Contributing to the minimization of land consumption and servicing costs through its infill and cost-effective nature;
Being located within a designated settlement area and effecting an efficient use of land and resources through the redevelopment of underutilized properties;
Appropriately and efficiently using infrastructure and public service facilities; and
Being constructed to meet current energy efficiency standards.
14The Tribunal accepts this evidence and, based upon it, finds that the proposed draft instruments are consistent with the PPS.
15Regarding the County OP, Mr. Patterson testified that the Lands are designated “Serviced Urban Area”, and land within the County must be used efficiently with growth accommodated through intensification within the existing serviced settlement areas. He further opined that the proposed draft instruments support the general objectives of the County OP through the intensification of a property designated for growth. It further contributes to the creation of a complete community by promoting a range and mix of housing types, sizes, costs, and tenure within the neighbourhood.
16Mr. Patterson further testified that the proposed draft instruments conform to the policy direction of Section 6.4.8.6 of the County OP as the development will be located in an area which minimizes the cost of providing municipal services, is compatible with adjacent existing development, and is acceptable in scale in relation to existing development, while being accessible via a local road. Additionally, he opined that the proposed DPS conforms to the Draft Plan of Subdivision policies of the County OP.
17Mr. Patterson testified that the County OP was updated in 2025, after the applications were originally filed. Through his evidence, he did not report any material differences in the two versions that would affect a finding of conformity with either.
18The Tribunal accepts his evidence and finds that the proposed draft instruments conform to both the earlier and current versions of the County OP.
19Turning to the Milverton Ward Official Plan (“Milverton OP”), Mr. Patterson testified that the Lands are designated “Residential”, and Policy 4.1.2. clearly notes that the “Residential” designation means that the predominant use of land in this area is suited to a variety of residential dwelling types, including semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. Policy 4.1.5.3 of the Milverton OP requires that requests for Medium Density Residential development be evaluated individually on their own merits in accordance with evaluation criteria, which Mr. Patterson considered approvingly.
20Once again, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Patterson’s opinions and similarly finds that the proposed draft instruments conform to the Milverton OP.
21Looking next at s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, Mr. Patterson opined that the proposed DPS satisfies the criteria listed, including adequacy of municipal services, lot dimensions, grading, and fit within the context of the overall neighborhood. The Tribunal accepts his evidence and comes to the same conclusion.
22Regarding the proposed DPS conditions, they originate from the County Planning Staff Report recommending support of the proposed draft instruments. Mr. Patterson agreed that most of the recommended conditions were reasonable, but with some modifications (the final form of conditions endorsed by Mr. Patterson is set out in Attachment 3). The Tribunal accepts Mr. Patterson’s uncontested opinion that the modified conditions are reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.
Summary and Conclusion
23In summary, Mr. Patterson opined that the proposed draft instruments facilitate development that is compatible and do not adversely impact the surrounding neighbourhood. He characterized the plans as “gentle intensification” of the Lands and will assist in providing a modest increase to the much-needed housing supply. The development will further make efficient use of the otherwise underutilized Lands, while also desirably utilizing existing municipal infrastructure.
24As such, he opined that the proposed draft instruments have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the County OP and Milverton OP. Additionally, the DPS satisfies the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and the conditions of DPS approval are reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Planning Act. Altogether, he testified that the proposed draft instruments represent good planning and are in the public interest.
25Hearing nothing to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Patterson’s evidence and opinions and finds the same in approving the proposed draft instruments.
ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
The appeal pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and By-Law No. 30-1999 is hereby amended, as set out at Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Perth East to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes;
The appeal pursuant to subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by J. Patrick Haramis, Ontario Land Surveyor, dated May 2, 2024, and revised on September 10, 2025, as set out at Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out at Attachment 3 to this Order; and
Pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Perth shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Planning Act.
27In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3