Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town), 2026 CanLII 38569

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000968 OLT-25-000339

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use community with a storm water management pond

Reference Number: OPA1220.02

Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000968

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

OLT Case Name: Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town)

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

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

Reference Number: Z.1220.02

Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000969

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number: 24T-24001/1220

Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000970

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1816985 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation

Appellant: Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc

Appellant: Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 326 & 45

Description: To facilitate the implementation of the Neyagawa Urban Core Area

Reference Number: OPA -326 File No. 42.15.60

Property Address: Neyagawa Urban Core (Neyagawa Boulverd and Burnhamthorpe Road)

Municipality/UT: Town of Oakville

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000339

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000339

OLT Case Name: 1816985 Ontario Inc. et al. v.

Heard: February 9, 10, 13, 16-18, 20, 23-25, 27, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Town of Oakville

David Germain Nadia Chandra Jennifer Anyaeji (student-at-law)

Argo Neyagawa Corporation (“ANC”)

Patrick Harrington Meaghan Barrett

1816985 Ontario Inc. (Westerkirk Capital Inc.) (“Westerkirk”)

Andrew Jeanrie Samuel Judson

Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. (“Sherborne”)

Denise Baker Narmada Gunawardana

Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. (“BOH”)

Adrianna Pilkington Jennifer Evola Nikola Cuvalo (student-at-law)

DECISION DELIVERED BY Kurtis Smith AND Interim Orders OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The month of February 2026 was set to hear the merits of the Town of Oakville’s (“Town”) initiated Neyagawa Urban Core (“NUC”) Official Plan Amendments (“NUC OPA”) to amend the 1984 Oakville Official Plan’s North Oakville East Secondary Plan (“OPA 326” and “NOESP”) and the Livable Oakville Plan (“OPA 45” and “Town OP”) as well as hearing the merits of the site-specific appeals of ANC (“ANC Appeal”) pertaining to their lands within the NUC to permit their Proposed Development.

2The ANC Appeals consist of amendments to the NOESP, the Town’s Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), and their application of Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) to facilitate their Proposed Development. Following the ANC Appeals, the Town adopted the NUC OPA which includes part of the ANC amendment to the NOESP. Therefore, ANC is seeking amendments to the NUC OPA instead of a separate site-specific amendment to the NOESP.

3The purpose of the NUC OPA is to identify and establish policies for the NUC strategic growth area. The NUC refers to lands located in North Oakville, comprising of approximately 75 hectares (“ha”) of land across the four corners around the intersection of Neyagawa Boulevard and Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway. The lands are adjacent to Highway 407 to the north.

4Four of the landowners within the NUC strategic growth area appealed the NUC OPA on common and various policies elements. Leading up to the Hearing, full and partial settlements were reached and reduced the Hearing time required for the Hearing.

5Sherborne resolved their issues pertaining to the mapping schedules and BOH fully resolved their issues and executed Minutes of Settlement with the Town (Exhibit 27). As a result of their appeals being resolved, Sherborne and BOH participated in the opening and closing submissions of the NUC OPA and had only an observatory role during the remainder of the Hearing.

6Westerkirk and ANC executed partial Minutes of Settlement with the Town (Exhibit 28 and 29, respectively) leaving four NUC OPA issues remaining in dispute.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MATTERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

7The Hearing was held in two parts: NUC OPA and ANC Appeals.

• NUC OPA

a) The uncontested Settlement is shown in Exhibit 5 through yellow highlighting for additional policy language and applying strikeouts for policy deletions as well as through the Minutes of Settlement as mentioned above.

b) The remaining NUC Appeal policies in contention relate to: a food store (Westerkirk, policy 7.6.6.2(g)); public realm and amenity (ANC, policy 7.6.6.7(c)); building heights (ANC, policy 7.6.6.4(d)); and minimum density in terms of how is it to be calculated (the “denominator”) and the density target (ANC and Westerkirk, policy 7.6.6.4(c)).

• ANC Appeals

a) Lastly, the ANC Appeal relates to the proposed development of their lands that are situated in the northwestern lands of Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway as contemplated in the preliminary concept shown on page 22 of Exhibit 20. The areas in disagreement relate to the Village Square (parkland), trail, built form, and consistency with the outcome of the NUC OPA.

WITNESSES

8To support the positions of the Town, ANC, and Westerkirk, they introduced the following witnesses:

9Town:

i. Land Use Planning - Ms. Kelly Graham

• A Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, with 10 years of experience, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by the Town on October 31, 2025.

ii. Urban Design - Ms. Carolyn Fearman

• An Urban Designer and licensed Architect that is a member of the Ontario Association of Architects, with 14 years of experience, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by the Town on October 31, 2025.

iii. Transit Planning - Mr. Adrian Kawun

• A transportation planner, with approximately 20 years of experience, with a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning, is currently employed by the Town as the Director of Transit, and has previously been qualified before the Tribunal.

iv. Land Economics, including Commercial Needs - Mr. Chris White

• A Land Economist with Honours Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics and Urban, Economic & Social Geography, is a member of the Association of Ontario Land Economists, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by the Town in 2023.

v. Parks Planning - Mr. Frank Loconte

• A landscape Architect, with over 20 years of municipal planning of parks, design, and development, and is currently employed by the Town as the Manager of Parks Capital Planning.

10ANC:

i. Land Use Planning - Mr. Jim Levac

• A Registered Professional Planner with over 25 years of experience, is a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by ANC in October of 2024.

ii. Urban Design - Mr. John Richard

• An Urban Designer and registered Landscape Architect with the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, with over 25 years of experience, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by ANC in 2023.

11Westerkirk:

• Land Use Planning - Ms. Inger Squires

a) A Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, with 15 years of experience, has previously been qualified before the Tribunal, and was retained by Westerkirk in May of 2024.

12The Tribunal qualified each witness to provide opinion evidence in their respective areas of expertise without objection from any of the Parties. They provided the Tribunal with comprehensive written and oral evidence to support their opinions on the matter(s) pertaining to their areas of expertise to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating.

PART ONE

OVERVIEW OF THE NEYAGAWA URBAN CORE

13Following an extensive planning process, Town Council adopted the NUC OPA. Leading up to the Hearing of the Merits, revisions to the NUC OPA were negotiated and are reflected in the Minutes of Settlement as mentioned above. The NUC OPA purpose and effect is as follows:

The purpose of this proposed OPA is to identify and establish policies for the Neyagawa Urban Core strategic growth area at the intersection of Neyagawa Boulevard and Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway.

The effect of the proposed OPA to the 1984 Oakville Official Plan’s North Oakville East Secondary Plan will:

i. update schedules to identify the Neyagawa Urban Core strategic growth area and designate the lands as “Neyagawa Urban Core Area”

ii. provide area-specific land use policies to support the creation of a transit-supportive, active transportation supportive, complete community that includes a mix of medium and high density residential, commercial and institutional uses

iii. provide area-specific functional and implementation policies to enable and guide redevelopment consistent with the above, which addresses matters including urban design, transportation, stormwater management, and parkland dedication and public realm enhancements

14The figure below (Exhibit 5, page 13) illustrates the location and boundary of the NUC. The Tribunal notes the omission of “Burnhamthorpe Road” from this figure which is the eastern portion of the crossroad of Neyagawa Boulevard, and William Halton Parkway is to be shifted to the west side of Neyagawa Boulevard.

15The NUC directs the highest densities along Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway / Burnhamthorpe Road, with a higher storey minimum (five storeys) associated with the lands north of William Halton Parkway / Burnhamthorpe Road in comparison to the south (three storeys). Furthermore, the NUC prescribes a minimum 14,000 square metres (“sq m”) of retail and service commercial to be provided within the NUC, distributed as follows:

• across block 1 and 2 - 1,000 sq m;

• block 3 and 9 - 300 sq m; and,

• block 5 - 3,700 sq m.

16This additional image below, found in Exhibit 26, page 11, presents the current proposed developments/concepts of the four appellants together layered on top of the aerial photograph.

• Block 2 – ANC

• Block 3 – BOH (west) and Westerkirk (east)

• Block 5 – Sherborne

17No landowners within Block 1 and 4 appealed the NUC OPA.

18Block 4 has been developed predominantly with freehold townhouses to the south and a private school to the north in 2008. The lands to the west of Fourth Line within Block 4 are not developed.

19The terminology of “407 Transitway” has been removed from the NUC OPA. This change was prompted by communication from the Ministry of Transportation to the Town on May 12, 2025 (Exhibit 3, Page 5-6), re-confirming the decision that a future transit station along Highway 407 corridor at the Neyagawa Partial interchange is not warranted. However, the 407 Transitway lands and associated buffer thereto remain as shown in Blocks 2 and 3.

20Lastly, figures NOE1 (Community Structure) and NOE2 (Land Use Plan) (Exhibit 5, Pages 26-29) of the NOESP and Schedule A1 (Urban Structure) in the Town OP (Exhibit 5, Pages 33-34) have been revised to reflect the new boundary of the NUC.

UNCONTESTED SETTLEMENT

21Ms. Graham, Mr. Kawun, and Mr. White presented written and oral evidence (Exhibits 26 and 30) to support their opinions pertaining to the revised and uncontested NUC policies, Exhibit 5.

22The modification includes: the removal of the “407 Transitway” language, reduction of the minimum commercial space requirements, the inclusion of the word “target” pertaining to density, flexibility to the urban design policies, amongst other minor policy wording alterations.

23Ms. Graham opined that the revised policies not in contention: have regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”); are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) including policy 2.2.1 on General Policies for Strategic Growth Areas; and conform to the Halton Region Official Plan (“HROP”), Town OP, and the existing / in-force NOESP policies.

24The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence and opinions of Ms. Graham, Mr. Kawun, and Mr. White, and finds that the NUC OPA policies as revised and uncontested, have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the HROP, Town OP, and NOESP.

CONTESTED POLICIES

25At the outset of the Hearing, ANC and Westerkirk provided the Tribunal with policy alternatives relating to the policies in dispute (Exhibit 22-25). The remaining NUC OPA policies in dispute are: Policy 7.6.6.2 (g) food store by Westerkirk, Policy 7.6.6.7 (c) public realm and amenity by ANC, Policy 7.6.6.4 (d) building heights by ANC, and Policy 7.6.6.4 (c) minimum density by ANC and Westerkirk.

26The Tribunal will examine and adjudicate each of the policies in contention individually. Provided at the outset is the policy number, followed by the policy as adopted by Town Council and/or amended through the uncontested settlement, with the policy wording alternatives by ANC and/or Westerkirk through cross outs (deletions) and bolded letters/numbers (additions/changes).

NUC OPA Policy 7.6.6.2 (g) “Food Store”

g) A food store should is encouraged to be provided within Block 3 of Figure 7.6.6.2.

27In short, Westerkirk is seeking to be “encouraged to” provide a food store in Block 3 instead of being directed to do so through the language of “should”.

28Council for Westerkirk, Mr. Jeanrie stated that the BOH proposed development does not include a Food Store, and therefore it would fall on Westerkirk to fulfill this policy objective, as they are the only two property owners in Block 3.

29As outlined above, Block 3 is required to provide a minimum of 9,300 sq m of commercial space, whereas across Block 1 and 2, and Block 5 will be required to provide 1,000 sq m and 3,700 sq m, respectively.

30To address this, first, the Tribunal looks to the interpretations of auxiliary verbs of ‘should’, ‘shall’, and ‘may’ which are found at policy 31.1.9 of the NOESP (Exhibit 1, Page 187).

• “may” implies that the policy is permissive and not mandatory or obligatory;

• “should” implies that the policy is directive and demands compliance unless proven otherwise on good planning grounds; and

• “shall” implies that the policy is mandatory and requires full compliance.

31The term “encouraged” is used often throughout the NOESP, but it is not defined nor is it interpreted as a term.

32“Food store” is also not defined in the NOESP; however, the Tribunal notes that the North Oakville East – Commercial Study prepared by Parcel Economics Inc. (“Parcel Study”), which forms the basis of the NUC OPA commercial policies (Exhibit 2, Page 1368-1369), indicates that supermarkets, small grocery stores, bakeries, health food stores, fruit and vegetable shops, and boutiques such as butcher or cheese shops are considered “food stores”. The Town Council adopted policy does not prescribe a minimum size requirement for food stores.

33Ms. Graham opined that the NUC is mainly greenfield in comparison to other areas within the Town where policy direction encourages the development of Food Stores. She elaborated that a stronger policy is warranted, as there is currently no Food Store in the NUC and that the policy direction of “should” provides an appropriate level of flexibility as per the interpretation stated above. Furthermore, she stated that Town Council requested to “ensure adequate retail and service commercial is delivered including the provision of a food store” (Exhibit 32, page 9).

34Ms. Squires communicated that it is more appropriate to have “aspirational” policy language regarding the Food Store, indicating that “should” is more prescriptive and does not provide enough flexibility. She went on to state that a variety of retail and commercial such as a Food Store is important to a mixed-use community, however flexibility ought to be provided as market considerations and evolutions must be taken into account. Ms. Squires opined that the NOESP includes aspirational policy language for other areas, and the same flexibility should be applied in the NUC. She went on to state that the Parcel Study or any other study does not state that Block 3 be required to have a Food Store. However, the Parcel Study does indicate that the Town could consider establishing incentives for commercial development.

NUC OPA POLICY 7.6.6.3 (g) Findings

35The Tribunal finds that the interpretation of “should”, the array of “food store” possibilities as presented in the Parcel Study, and the undefined minimum size provides an abundance of flexibility for the policy requirement. Furthermore, Block 3 will provide almost two-thirds of the required commercial space of the NUC and, therefore, it is appropriate to require that a food store be located within Block 3. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Graham and finds the policy language of “should” has regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act as it contributes to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, is consistent with the PPS by providing adequate commercial uses within a greenfield strategic growth area to accommodate a significant population and employment growth (s. 2.4.2 a) and contributes to the achievement of complete communities.

NUC OPA Policy 7.6.6.7 (c) “Public Realm and Amenity”

c) The locations and delivery of urban squares, promenades, connecting links, and other open spaces shall be coordinated and delivered as development progresses to ensure that these amenities are provided for residents and employees in a timely manner.

36ANC is requesting that revisions be made to the public realm and amenity policy, as they suggest that the phrases “and delivery/and delivered” as included in the policy are unclear.

37Mr. Levac opined that removing “and delivery/and delivered” would eliminate any future confusion pertaining to who or how the public realm amenity spaces will come to exist. However, he did state that if the wording was removed, it would not change the intent of the policy, which would result in the same outcome, as the implementation of the public realm and amenities which would be addressed during the site plan and development stage.

38Ms. Graham communicated that the inclusion of “and delivery/and delivered” in the policy is important in achieving the creation of complete communities, by ensuring that the public realm will be provided. She went on to opine that identical wording is used in the Trafalgar Urban Core OPA (“OPA 335”) in the Town (exhibit 39, pages 2-3 and 13).

39However, during the closing submissions, ANC Counsel communicated that the policies are not identical. At the end of the public realm section of OPA 335 the following language appears but is not included in the NUC OPA: “Urban squares, promenades, connecting links, and other open spaces may be provided in a variety of ownership to be determined during the development approval process”.

40It became apparent to the Tribunal through the direct and cross examination of Mr. Levac and Ms. Graham that the dispute primarily relates to the uncertainty of the “ownership” for delivering the public realm and amenities.

NUC OPA POLICY 7.6.6.7 (c) Findings

41The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Levac and finds that by removing “and delivery/and delivered” from the policy, will eliminate any uncertainty relating to how and who will develop the public realm and amenity features. As such, the determination of ownership will be determined at a later stage of the planning and development process. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Policy 7.6.6.7 (c) as amended has regard for s. 2 of the Act by providing for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities and encourages a sense of place as location will be determined during the development stage. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the policy is consistent with the PPS as it will meet the long-term needs of the community by providing recreation, parks, and open space (s. 2.1. 6.a) in an efficient manner (s. 3.1.1) as directed in the policy.

NUC OPA POLICY 7.6.6.4 (d) “Building Height”

d) Building Heights

i. Residential and mixed use development within 30 metres from the north side of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway and along the east and up to 80 m along the west sides of Neyagawa Boulevard north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway right-of-way, shall be a minimum height of 5 storeys, excluding podium elements which may be lower.

42In summary, the Town adopted and revised policy would see residential and mixed-use development of five storeys (“five-storey zone”) at a depth of 30 metres (“m”) constructed on the northern side of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway, as well as both the west and east sides of Neyagawa Boulevard, north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway to the 407 Transitway. ANC seeks to reduce the five-storey zone requirement to “up to 80 m along” the western side of Neyagawa north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway.

43Ms. Graham opined that the intent of this policy is to concentrate density along the corridor of the NUC and that this principle is not achieved through the development of townhouses, further stating that the west side of Neyagawa should mirror and compliment the east, which will provide a cohesive experience within the public realm.

44Ms. Fearman communicated that the intent of the policy is to create a wall of mixed-use development along the NUC corridor. She went on to state that by removing this requirement, it will inherently change the built form of the NUC.

45Both Mr. Levac and Mr. Richard originally provided written evidence in support of the five-storey zone, however, they altered their position in their written reply and oral evidence.

46Mr. Levac opined that the five-storey zone is not needed along the entire length of Neyagawa to achieve the density requirements. He communicated that he would refer to Mr. Richard’s urban planning evidence, but points to the 407 Transitway fence, the inability for front facing units onto 407 Transitway lands, and the inability for a street entrance from Neyagawa to reduce the five-storey zone along the west side of Neyagawa Boulevard.

47Mr. Richard opined that the challenging environment along Neyagawa Boulevard creates a hostile urban living environment. He went on to explain that those constraints include a lack of direct access permitted into the ANC Lands from Neyagawa Boulevard, the 407 Transitway fence and lands, which prevent buildings to front onto Neyagawa Boulevard, and the higher speeds of 80 km/h, as well as the highway function near the 407 Transitway offramp, which all create a hostile urban living environment. While under cross-examination Mr. Richard stated that he did not recommend the change of reducing the five-storey zone to 80 m. He explained that he provided his opinion on the change, which he evaluated and supports as it achieves three key objectives: (1) provides an appropriate transit supportive density, (2) establishes height and massing at the corner of William Halton Parkway and Neyagawa Boulevard, and lastly (3) brings higher density population where the streetscape environment can support it. He confirmed that there is no magic to the distance of 80 m beyond the amount of traffic coming in and out of the ANC Lands from William Halton Parkway. However, Mr. Richard was not qualified to provide traffic evidence. He further opined that he believes that the east side of Neyagawa Boulevard will have similar constraints, mainly with the street connection and bringing large densities to the interface of Neyagawa Boulevard, which is primarily used as highway.

NUC OPA POLICY 7.6.6.4 (d) Findings

48The Tribunal heard no persuasive evidence to end the five-storey zone at 80 m and, more specifically, how 80 m became the distance. However, the Tribunal acknowledges the constraints of development on the lands adjacent to the 407 Transitway fence and lands. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the five-storey zone requirement along Neyagawa Boulevard up until the 407 Transitway fence is consistent with the PPS as it will provide for an appropriate type of scale and development within the NUC strategic growth area and transition of built form (s. 2.4.1 3.c). The requirement of the five-storey zone along the west and east side of Neyagawa Boulevard will complement each other and will produce the Town’s visions of framing the NUC corridors with well-established mixed-use higher density-built forms and consistency with the PPS for the development of complete communities. Moreover, the five-storey zone has regard for s. 2 of the Act as it contributes to the adequate provision of a full range of housing and a built form that encourages a sense of place.

NUC OPA Policy 7.6.6.4 (c) “Minium Density”

c) Minimum Density

The Neyagawa Urban Core Area shall achieve an overall minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per ha. The general target proportion should be 85% residents and 15% jobs.

This minimum density target should be achieved through the application of minimum target densities per block, measured across the entirety of each of the following blocks as identified in Figure 7.6.6.2 but excluding public rights of way allowances and widenings:

i) Block 1 – 200 residents and jobs combined per ha

ii) Block 2 – 200 160 residents and jobs combined per ha

iii) Block 3 – 200 160 residents and jobs combined per ha

iv) Block 4 – existing

v) Block 5 - 160 residents and jobs combined per ha

49In summary, the Town adopted policy confirms the overall minimum density target for the NUC to be 160 residents and jobs combined per ha and applies block-by-block minimum density targets to achieve the overall target. Whereas ANC and Westerkirk seeks two modifications: (1) how density is calculated (the denominator), the basis of the amount of land to measure the density per block, and (2) the minimum density target per block.

What is the NUC’s overall Minimum Density Target?

50Ms. Graham opined that the denominator is required to be the entire lands within the NUC as prescribed by Policy 227.1 of the HROP through the HROP Table 2B (Strategic Growth Area Targets) which states:

227.1 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY means the number of residents and jobs combined per hectare measured as follows:

c) for the Strategic Growth Areas density targets in Table 2b, the density is measured across the Strategic Growth Areas in their entirety.

51All Parties agree and the Tribunal accepts that the overall minimum density target of the NUC is 160 residents and jobs per ha as outlined in HROP, Table 2B, Exhibit 1, page 118.

Can Block 4 achieve a higher density than what is existing?

52Block 4 was primarily developed in 2008 and has an estimated existing density of 34 residents and jobs combined per ha. Ms. Graham opined that the density may be increased through Additional Residential Units (“ARUs”) in the existing dwellings or by constructing a secondary unit in the rear yards, and went on to state that redevelopment through the assembly of many parcels would be hard to achieve. Under cross-examination, Mr. Jeanrie took Ms. Graham to Exhibit 37 that presents an aerial photo of the Bayview/Sheppard area of the City of Toronto, where redevelopment of single detached dwellings resulted in a higher density development. However, in re-examination, Ms. Graham communicated that a momentous change in public transit in that area was likely the cause of the redevelopment in that area.

53Within Block 4 on the west side of Fourth Line, it is undeveloped. Ms. Graham communicated that it is constrained by its topography and woodland features which is part of the Town’s Natural Heritage System. It was confirmed that the entirety of Block 4 is designated NUC and bound by the Natural Heritage System Area to the west. Ms. Squires stated that no study has been completed regarding the feasibility of development on the western portions of Block 4 and therefore no evidence has been provided to advise whether it can or cannot be developed.

54The Tribunal finds that Block 4 has the potential for further development and therefore higher densities through the deployment of ARUs at the bare minimum. Currently, the potential prospect of development of the western portion of Block 4 is unknown.

What lands are included in the denominator when calculating density block-by-block? And what should the minimum density target be for each block?

55First, as proffered through the evidence and closing submissions of the Parties, the principal purpose of setting different minimum density targets block-by-block is to “make up” for Block 4’s existing low density with Blocks 1-3 picking up the balance of the density allocation, essentially due to the higher minimum storeys in comparison to Block 5 to reach the overall density target.

56Mr. Levac and Ms. Squires opined that undevelopable lands, existing public rights-of-way, including the 407 Transitway (“takeouts”), should be excluded from the denominator as they cannot be developed, although the Blocks shown in Figure 7.6.6.2 extend to the centre line of the roads and engulfs the 407 Transitway. Mr. Levac stated that by including the rights-of-ways artificially inflates the densities. However, he communicated that the internal roads to each block should not be excluded.

57Mr. Levac opined that the Ministry of Transportation Transit Supportive Guidelines, 2012, Figure 9: Transit Service Type by Density (Exhibit 3, Page 211) outline the suggested minimum density per transit service type and indicate that 200 residents and jobs per ha is equivalent to Subway transit level density, as shown below:

58As shown in NOE4, Exhibit 1, page 211, the NUC is planned to be serviced by a secondary transit corridor service and community service. As well, the Long-Term Oakville Transit Frequent Transit Network (Exhibit 8, page 7) directs that the NUC is planned to be serviced by frequent transit.

59Ms. Graham affirmed that Policy 227.1 of the HROP requires that the minimum density target is measured across the entirety of the NUC and, by removing the takeouts, the minimum density target will not be achieved when measured across the entirety of the NUC. Furthermore, the second paragraph of the policy as adopted, revised and undisputed, states that “This minimum density target” being an overall minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs per ha “should be achieved through the application of minimum target densities per block”.

60Ms. Graham’s density calculations are found on Exhibit 32, pages 33 and 34, and are found below:

61The chart above presents Ms. Grahams calculation of the density when implementing part of the ANC and Westerkirk alternative policy wording reducing the minimum densities of Block 2 and 3 to 160, still including Block 4, and calculating the block-by-block total residents and jobs without the takeouts. Then, to find the overall NUC density, the total sum of all the blocks’ residents and jobs are then divided by the total area of the NUC to determine that the density achieved across the entirety of the NUC would be 110 residents and jobs per ha.

62This chart is similar but different than the above. Ms. Graham calculates the density when fully implementing the ANC and Westerkirk alternative policy wording by reducing the minimum densities of Block 2 and 3 to 160, removing Block 4 entirely, and calculating the block-by-block total residents and jobs with the takeouts removed. Then, to find the overall NUC density, the total sum of all the block residents and jobs are then divided by the total area of the NUC to determine that the density achieved across the entirety of the NUC would be 128 residents and jobs per ha.

63In closing submissions, ANC argued that the above is “yield-based” and not “rate-base” calculations. Stating that even when assigning a density target of 200 to Blocks 1-3, and 5, and excluding Block 4 entirely, the overall math would still not work, resulting in 154 residents and jobs per ha. ANC also argued that the Town has approved another OPA (Exhibit 34) affecting a different area of the Town that determines densities on a site-by-site basis and excluding lands required for public parks and open spaces, educational facilities, and public services, suggesting that the same method could be used for the NUC OPA. The Town argued that Exhibit 40 demonstrates that the minimum FSI allocated to each of the sites was set high enough that they offset the existing roads, transit infrastructure, parks, etc. to achieve the overall density target set for the area of 200 residents and jobs per ha.

64When performing further calculations, the Tribunal notes that the takeouts of the NUC are approximately 15.33 ha or 22% of the total NUC lands.

NUC OPA Policy 7.6.6.4 (c) Findings

65The Tribunal considers all the evidence and submissions concerning the denominator when calculating density block-by-block and what the minimum targets per block should be. Ultimately, it comes down to how to make the calculations work by allocating numbers to blocks while simultaneously considering the denominator options to determine which options can achieve overall conformity to the first paragraph of this policy: “the NUC shall achieve an overall minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare”. Therefore, to conform to the aforementioned policy, for every ha of land in the NUC underachieving 160 residences and jobs per ha, the remaining lands must achieve a higher target. As in this case, if Block 4’s target remains “existing”, then Block 1-3 and 5 must exceed 160 residence and jobs per ha overall. Furthermore, for every ha of land not included in the denominator for the block-by-block calculations, the minimum targets must exceed 160 residences and jobs per ha.

66Block 4 is the only block considered to be developed compared to the four greenfield Blocks 1-3 and 5. The Tribunal finds that removal of Block 4 from the block-by-block minimum density targets is acceptable. The Tribunal also finds that reducing Blocks 2 and 3 minimum density targets to 160 residence and jobs per ha while keeping the denominator unchanged is an acceptable balanced approach that will achieve new development conformity to Policy 227.21 of the HROP of the overall minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per ha. Lastly, the Tribunal finds that by setting minimum density targets block-by-block within the NUC has regard for s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS by achieving orderly development at appropriate density targets within a strategic growth area.

PART TWO

OVERVIEW OF THE ARGO NEYAGAWA CORPORATION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

67As described above, the ANC Lands are contained within Block 2 and are bound by the 407 Transitway to the north, Neyagawa Boulevard on the east, William Halton Parkway to the south, and primarily Fourth Line on the western boundary, with a smaller portion of privately owned land along the northern portion of the west side. Additionally, there is a rectangular shaped 0.58-ha parcel (“Holdout Parcel”) that is found approximately mid-way along William Halton Parkway that is privately owned.

68The Proposed Development that is before the Tribunal has been revised from its original iteration. To note, the Original Proposed Development (Exhibit 4, page 358) included a Trail along the 407 Transitway Buffer, a road network connection to Neyagawa Boulevard, a larger medium/high-density block, and internal condominium blocks that would develop as a range of Townhouse units and no lands were designated for a Village Square.

69The Revised Proposed Development, similar to but vastly different from the original, is found on Exhibit 20, page 22, and is described as follows. The road network is entirely public streets, apart from the medium/high density condominium block, and has two connections to Fourth Line and one “right-in / right out” connection to William Halton Parkway bounding the eastern property line of the Holdout Parcel. The Ministry of Transportation has communicated that no road access is permitted into the ANC Lands from Neyagawa Boulevard.

70Along William Halton Parkway from west to east, the storm water management pond (“SWM Pond”) is located in the south-west portion of the ANC Lands at approximately the same depth of the Holdout Parcel, followed by an eight-storey tower with a five-storey podium indicated on the Holdout Parcel, and the street connection (“Street A”), followed by the medium/high density block with a reverse “L” shaped five-storey podium, framing the corner of William Halton Parkway and Neyagawa Boulevard approximately 80 m in each direction with two 18-storey towers anchoring each end of the podium.

71Within the Revised Proposed Development, there are a variety of townhouse forms totalling 332 units that are a mix of back-to-back, dual frontage, rear lane, and standard townhouses, with an associated range in width of 5.6 m to 7.3 m, and heights from two to four storeys. The two-storey townhouses do not front onto Fourth Line and Neyagawa Boulevard.

72As mentioned above, the Revised Proposed Development includes the 407 Transitway and associated buffer zone that is 14 m in width and extends across the width of the ANC Lands. The proposal includes three irregular triangle shaped open space blocks that back onto the transit buffer, which have been “divided” by two perpendicular townhouse blocks which result in the three open space areas. A trail is no longer indicated south of the 407 Transitway buffer.

73A Village Square has been identified on the northern portion of the Holdout Parcel with frontage onto two streets and siding onto the SWM Pond. It is approximately 0.3 ha, and it is indicated that it will be purchased by the Town.

74Lastly, communication has been provided by the Ministry of Transportation (Exhibit 4, pages 845-849) further indicating that the existing chain link fence that is found along Neyagawa Boulevard will remain intact and cannot be removed, that front facing dwellings with direct access to the 407 lands are not permitted, and that an additional 14 m building setback is required along Neyagawa Boulevard that is bound by the chain link fence.

ARGO NEYAGAWA CORPORATION APPEAL

75The areas in contention pertaining to the ANC Proposed Development is the village square location, the inclusion of a trail, built form, and the DPS conditions.

76ANC submitted that the ZBA and DPS are not in their final form and would need to be updated and revised to align with the outcome of this Decision in addition to formatting, including defined zoning provisions for each development block. ANC requests 45 days to update the planning instruments following the issuance of this Decision.

Village Square

77ANC has located the future Village Square that is to be purchased by the Town to the rear of the Holdout Parcel which is bound by Street A to the east, that leads from William Halton Parkway, Street C with townhouses across to the north, the SWM Pond to the west, and a conceptual parking lot that is in connection to the conceptual high density residential area that fronts onto William Halton Parkway, as found on Exhibit 22, page 16 and shown below:

78What is a Village Square? As outlined in Exhibit 2, page 80, s. 3.6.2.3 of the urban design and open space guidelines:

Village Squares are the smallest in the park’s hierarchy. The design of Village Squares should reflect the needs of surrounding residents, including places to sit and socialize, dedicated play areas for children of all ages that could be maintained by local residents and a significant tree canopy for shade and drainage benefits. Village Squares provide passive open space areas which are intended to serve as focal points within sub-areas of each neighbourhood and are accessible within a five-minute walk.

79Mr. Richard supports the inclusion of the Village Square within Block 2 and opined that it is in an ideal location that is within a 500 m radius / walking distance from any location within the proposed development, is an appropriate size, provides good visibility, and has a linkage to the natural backdrop of the SWM Pond. Mr. Richards noted that the Village Square does not need to be in the middle of the Proposed Development to make it safe. He went on to explain that there will be lots of eyes on the Village Square with natural surveillance and residential dwellings all around and it aligns with “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (“CPTED”).

80Mr. Levac communicated that the Village Square is located near the high-density blocks, has street exposure, and has potential synergy with the adjacent SWM. He stated that ANC is a signatory to the Master Parkland Agreement (“MPA”) with the Town and that a Village Square is not required to be located within Block 2, in accordance with figure NOE2, and, therefore, if the Town wishes to develop a Village Square, it will need to acquire land. Mr. Levac opined that the inclusion of a Village Square within Block 2 is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Town OP and NOESP.

81Mr. Loconte communicated that through the application process, he provided comments to ensure that the proposed development meets the long-term park provisions and standards. He opined that he is unsure when the Village Square would be created, as it is outside of the ANC Lands and should be relocated. Mr. Loconte went on to state that the Village Square should be located further from William Halton Parkway to prioritize safety and align with CPTED. He went on to say that the Village Square is a civic hub for the community and would be better situated between the current location of Streets C and G. Mr. Locontes confirmed during his cross examination that he is unable to interpret policies or the MPA and unsure of the process for the Town to acquire park land, however, he stated that they could expropriate it.

82Ms. Fearman opined that the Village Square illustration, as shown on Exhibit 22, page 16, is simply a concept and that feature within the Village Square could change. She went on to state that the Village Square should be more centrally located within the development. She provided two location options that she supports, as shown on Exhibit 46, page 21, which are north of the SWM and adjacent to Fourth Line or north of the ANC high density block. Both of these locations are within the ANC Lands and approximately 50 m from the location indicated by ANC.

83Similar to Mr. Loconte and Ms. Fearman, Ms. Graham opined that the location of the Village Square should be located within the ANC Lands and be more centrally located within Block 2. Further stating that the Village Square should not be developed in conjunction with the ANC Lands as it would be located on the Holdout Parcel and therefore would fail to facilitate the achievement of complete communities, she stated that its location there would not be consistent with the PPS and the Town OP. However, while under cross examination Ms. Graham agreed that complete communities are achieved through the entire community and not one development. Ms. Graham suggested that a holding provision could be used to ensure conformity and consistency for the delivery of the Village Square on the ANC Lands. Further stating that the holding provisions could be used for two years to allow the Town to decide whether they wish to purchase the lands for the development of a Village Square within the ANC Lands and, in the event they do not, ANC would then be able to proceed to develop it following the conclusion of the two-year hold.

84What is the Master Park Agreement? The Town, ANC, and many other property owners are signatories to the MPA (Exhibit 43, pages 19-66), where property owners provided monetary funds, and agreed to terms on where and how parkland will be developed. Moreover Policy 7.7.4.5 (c), Parkland Acquisition in the NOESP states:

To ensure the orderly and timely conveyance of parkland contemplated by this Plan, the Town shall enter into a Master Parkland Agreement with landowners who propose to develop their lands within the Plan. The Master Parkland Agreement will provide for conveyance to the Town of the parkland contemplated by this Plan and will provide for the cooperation among the landowners within the Plan in compensating each other for over-dedications and under-dedications of parkland, without the Town having to assemble parkland using its right to collect cash in lieu of parkland. All landowners within the area of the Plan who would otherwise be required to convey parkland, or pay cash in lieu of such parkland, to the Town in the manner set out in Subsections a) and b) above, and the relevant provisions of the Planning Act, will generally be required to execute the Master Parkland Agreement as a condition of draft plan of subdivision approval, or as a condition of approval of any other application under the Planning Act respecting the proposed development or redevelopment of their lands. Those landowners who execute the Master Parkland Agreement and comply with its terms will not be required to convey land or pay cash in lieu of such land to the Town in the manner set out in Subsections a) and b) above.

85Through the development of the NUC OPA, the North Oakville Community Builders Inc. (“NOCBI”) provided a letter (Exhibit 49) to the Town regarding the following proposed policy:

7.7.4.5 (f) In addition to the Master Parkland Agreement, urban squares, promenades, connecting links, and other open spaces may be provided in a variety of ownerships to be determined during the development approval process….

86NOCBI stated that the “proposed policy suggests that the Town intends to enshrine in its Official Plan a policy that could directly contravene the NOE Master Parkland Agreement and the Town’s Parkland Dedication By-law”. Shortly thereafter, Policy 7.7.4.5 (f) was removed from the draft NUC OPA.

Village Square Findings

87With the execution of the MPA between ANC and the Town, policy 7.7.4.5 (c) which states that “Those landowners who execute the Master Parkland Agreement and comply with its terms will not be required to convey land or pay cash in lieu of such land to the Town” and that a Village Square symbol is not shown on NOE2 in Block 2, the Tribunal finds that ANC is not required to provide a Village Square. Moreover, the Tribunal finds that the Town will need to acquire land for the creation of a Village Square within Block 2 regardless of its location on the Holdout Parcel or ANC Lands. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the inclusion of the MPA in the NOESP implies overall parkland development policy conformity.

88Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the location of the Village Square as illustrated by ANC will complement the SWM, is near the high-density block, provides adequate visibility through the road network and eyes on the Village Square from adjacent dwellings, and is within walking distance from all areas of the proposed development.

89While considering policy 7.6.6.7.c of the NUC OPA as amended in Part One above, relating to “and delivery/and delivered” and the effect of the MPA, the Tribunal finds that the Town must obtain the lands for a Village Square within Block 2 through a purchase and sale agreement, expropriation, etc. Therefore, the Town is in the “driver’s seat” to coordinate the development of a Village Square.

90In the Town’s closing submission, Counsel argues that the use of a holding provision can be imposed through the general power in s. 51(25) of the Act, as a condition of DPS, as it is (1) reasonable: the Village Square will support the Block 2 population, (2) relevant: the proposed development will create demand for recreational amenities, (3) necessary: to achieve policy conformity as opined by Ms. Graham, and (4) equitable: since the majority of residents of Block 2 using the Village Square will reside within ANC Lands. The Town relies on the case Fieldgate Development and Construction Ltd. v. Richmond Hill (Town), 1996 Carswell Ont 5703, which pertains to a public school board reserving a block for a future development of a school facility.

91On the other hand, ANC argues that there is no provision in the Act that authorises a municipality or the Tribunal to compel a landowner to create, reserve, and hold land for the discretionary parkland acquisition.

92The Tribunal looks to s. 36 (1) and (2) of the Act, which states:

Holding provision by-law

36 (1) The council of a local municipality may, in a by-law passed under section 34, by the use of the holding symbol “H” (or “h”) in conjunction with any use designation, specify the use to which lands, buildings or structures may be put at such time in the future as the holding symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 36 (1).

Condition

(2) A by-law shall not contain the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) unless there is an official plan in effect in the local municipality that contains provisions relating to the use of the holding symbol mentioned in subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 36 (2).

93The Tribunal agrees with ANC that the use of a holding provision cannot be employed for a possible acquisition by the Town. The Tribunal reiterates that if the Town wishes to see the development of a Village Square within Block 2, they must acquire the land.

Trail

94As mentioned above, the original ANC Proposed Development included a trail along the boundary of the 407 Transitway buffer. However, in the revised Proposed Development, the trail is removed, and ANC suggests that if the Town wishes to construct a trail that it be placed within the buffer.

95Mr. Levac and Mr. Richard similarly opined that if the Town wishes to develop a trail, they are able to do so within the 407 Transitway buffer. Further communicating that a trail is not warranted within the developable area of the ANC Lands. Mr. Levac communicated that he relies on Mr. Richards’ evidence regarding the trail but notes that a trail is not shown for the ANC Lands on the Town Transportation Plan, NOE4 (Exhibit 1, page 271). Additionally, Mr. Levac agreed, while under cross examination, that slight alterations to the side/rear yard of two lots adjacent to the open space blocks would only be required to permit a 2 m to 4 m wide strip to design the trail in the open space blocks and outside of the buffer.

96Mr. Richards opined that a major trail system is not shown on NOE4 for the ANC Lands and that the inclusion of a trail would not create or complete a trail loop. He went on to state that the major trail system will be constructed along and near natural features, and that the natural features are not contained within the ANC Lands. While under cross examination, Mr. Richards confirmed that he did not recommend the removal of the trail and assessed the development as a whole, which did not include the trail. Furthermore, Mr. Richards communicated that the creation of a trail could utilize the lands of both the open space blocks and buffer.

97Mr. Loconte communicated that a trail along the north portion of the ANC Lands supports the Town’s vision for the trail park system. As shown on the North Oakville Trails Plan (“NOTP”), a major trail is indicated to extend from the west of the NUC lands, cross over Fourth Line, and connect to the proposed bicycle trail system along Neyagawa Boulevard. The connection therefore would create a loop with the Regional bicycle trail and the multi-use trail along William Halton Parkway, as found on Exhibit 2, page 202 and shown below:

98Mr. Loconte communicated that by not including the trail within the ANC Lands, it would distinguish the NOTP in that area, as it would fail to produce a loop. He went on to explain that the inclusion of the trail within the buffer is not satisfactory, as the Ministry of Transportation may ask for its removal or alteration at any time, further stating that the slope of the lands within the buffer is not ideal for a trail. Mr. Loconte communicated that the inclusion of the trail between the buffer and the three open space blocks would connect the blocks and lessen the safety concerns by active pedestrian use of the trail. While under cross-examination, Mr. Loconte communicated that he relies on the NOTP and not NOE4, however, after reviewing NOE4, he confirmed that a trail is not shown on the ANC Lands. He further communicated that he sees no connection in the creation of a trail in the area to the connection with the future 407 Transitway, which is no longer being sought after by the Ministry of Transportation.

99Ms. Fearman opined that a trail along the buffer would provide a linkage between the three open space blocks.

100Lastly, Ms. Graham communicated that the NOESP provides a basis for the policy direction for trails and directs the use of the NOTP for the full implementation of the trail system. She confirmed that the trail is not shown on the NOE4 for the ANC Lands and that the NOE4 was not amended through the NUC OPA to extend the trail. Ms. Graham looked to s. 7.5.5.11 Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail System of the NOESP, which states:

An extensive system of recreational trails will be developed related to the Natural Heritage and Open Space System as well as along certain public road rights of way. A conceptual major trail system which will form a basis for the development of this more extensive system is identified on Figure NOE4. However, any proposed trail development within the Natural Heritage and Open Space System shall be subject to further study as part of the Implementation Strategy to the satisfaction of the Town, in consultation with the Region of Halton and Conservation Halton. The system may be refined through the preparation of an Environmental Implementation Report in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.8.3 a) of this Plan.

101Further communicating that the NOTP, which is the most up-to-date trail plan for the area, provides more information and direction as to where and how the trail network is implemented, she stated that NOE4 is the trail’s skeleton or, in other words, the starting point. She went on to state that trail conformity is not just related to NOE4. However, when asked under cross examination what application would need to be filed to amend the NOTP to confirm conformity, she was unable to answer. Additionally, Ms. Graham was unsure what the process was for the Town to acquire the lands for the trail and communicated that this is the time to acquire the land as there is a proposed development and that it takes time to acquire the land needed to create the trail network.

102Likewise, as above, ANC argues that the Town does not have the statutory authority to require ANC to identify and set aside private land for a public recreational purpose.

Trail Findings

103While NOE4 does not include a trail on the ANC Lands, the Tribunal finds that inclusion of the trail shown in the NOTP will: (1) complete functional loops for active recreation for residents in the proposed development, (2) connects the three open space blocks into one, providing “eyes on the park/green space”, (3) have minimal impact on the proposed development design as it can utilize the three open space blocks, sidewalks along the proposed streets, and reduce the rear yards of two units, and (4) ensures the long-term viability of the trail in comparison to the use of the buffer. The NOTP is a guideline document that warrants consideration when lands are in the development stage.

104Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that by connecting the three open space blocks to allow for the construction of the trail utilizing the open space block and sidewalks has regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the NOESP, and gives appropriate regard to the NOTP.

Built Form

105Stemming from the decision in Part One above, ANC is required to update their proposed development to conform to NUC OPA Policy 7.6.6.4(d) pertaining to the five-storey zone.

106Mr. Levac opined that the proposed development provides a range of housing through the high density and back-to-back, rear lane, dual frontage, and standard townhouses.

107Ms. Fearman and Ms. Graham opined that the proposed development does not provide a sufficient diversity of built form. Communicating that over 80% of the area of the developable area is planned for townhouses, they opined that by increasing the five-story zone the proposed development would see an increase in density, housing choice, and a diversity in built form.

Built Form Findings

108The Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. Levac and therefore finds that the Proposed Development’s built form has regard to s. 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS, as it will provide a range and mix of housing through the variety of townhouses, the five-storey zone, and the high rises at the corner of William Halton Parkway and Neyagawa Boulevard. Furthermore, the built form conforms to the NOESP urban design policy 7.2.3.4, more specifically policy “g” which encourages mixed use development along strategic corridors and policy “j” that promotes a variety of housing with diverse architecture.

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS

109Both Ms. Graham and Mr. Levac opined that the conditions of DPS are reasonable apart from Mr. Levac opposing the following conditions as they relate to the Village Square and Trail:

• Condition 21. That the Owner agrees to plan for and design the trails in accordance with the North Oakville Trails Plan and the EIR/FSS to the satisfaction of the Town.

• Condition 61. The Owner shall submit a detailed parks facility fit plan (and detailed cost estimate) to demonstrate the ultimate programming of the park block(s), to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Open Space.

• Condition 118. That the Owner agrees to implement cycling and trails plans in accordance with the North Oakville Trails Plan, when finalized, and the enacted Development Charges By-law to the satisfaction of the Town.

• Condition 121. That the Owner, at their sole expense, agrees to develop the parkland to a base-level condition as a local service provision under section 59 of the Development Charges Act.

This includes but is not limited to:

a) Clearing and grubbing.

b) Erosion and sediment control.

c) Topsoil stripping and stockpiling.

d) Servicing to just inside the property line (including water, hydro, storm, sanitary, electrical, fiber/phone, catchbasins, manholes, access boxes, meter, and meter boxes).

• The developer is to provide a full functioning electrical and water service to the park (to Oakville Hydro and Region of Halton standards) to which the park contractor will tie into.

• The full electrical and water service includes a water meter, hydro meter, and boxes. All costs associated with providing a full service to the park (including Region of Halton or Oakville Hydro fees/testing/inspections/permits) shall be born by the developer.

• Should the meters and boxes be planned more than 1 meter within park, the town shall bear the cost of the extending water piping or electrical lines to the planned location (e.g. precast shed).

e) Rough grading (pre-grading) to base level conditions and the supply of topsoil to the required depth.

f) Topsoil placement per the applicable subdivision agreement.

g) Temporary fencing (e.g. construction fence).

h) Temporary park sign.

i) Permanent fencing to town standards (e.g. chainlink fence).

j) Applicable heritage feature(s).

• Condition 122. That the base-level pre-servicing of the park blocks (sanitary, storm, water, hydro) shall match (without modification) the ultimate park grading and servicing design.

Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions Finding

110As result of the findings above regarding the Village Square, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Levac that the conditions 61, 121, and 122, pertaining to the Village Square, are to be removed as a Village Square is not within the DPS and therefore not necessary. However, conditions 21 and 118 relate to the creation of a trail. Based on the findings above, the Tribunal finds that condition 21 and 118 ought to remain as they pertain to the creation of the trail within the proposed development as determined above.

111Therefore, the Tribunal accepts the opinion of Ms. Graham that the reminder of the conditions are fair and reasonable and has regard for the criteria of s. 51 (25) of the Act.

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

112In making a decision with respect to the ZBA, the Tribunal must determine if it is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Town’s OP and NOESP, and has regard for s. 2 of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal must determine if the DPS meets the statutory test of s. 51(24) of the Act.

113The Tribunal finds the revised Proposed Development through the implementation of the revised ZBA is consistent with the PPS by permitting a mixed used development, that supports active transportation through the development of the trail network. The revised ZBA will contribute to a range and mixed of housing and built form, providing a variety of townhouse forms, medium and high-density units at an appropriate density within a fully serviced strategic growth area. The revised ZBA conforms to the Town’s OP and NOESP by creating a sense of place through the development of the Neyagawa Boulevard interface and high density built from at the corner of Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway. The variety of built form will support the achievement of the minimum density target set for Block 2 of the NOESP. Furthermore, the ZBA has regard to the NOTP by creating the trail through the efficient use of sidewalks and the open space block which will provide for the future competition of a trail loop.

114The Tribunal considers the criteria for DPS set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the DPS has regard for s. 51(24) of the Act as it conforms to the Town’s OP and NOESP, the lands are suitable for the purpose of subdividing, provides flood control through the development of the SWM Pond, and has an adequate road network and linkage to the surrounding existing road network.

115Lastly, based on the above, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA and DPS has regard for s. 2 of the Act.

SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE ANC APPEAL

116In summary, the Tribunal directs ANC to revise their draft planning instruments to conform with the NUC OPA as Ordered below, expand the three open space blocks to amalgamate them as one to allow for the future development of a trail by the Town, remove conditions 21, 61, 118, 121, and 122 from the DPS conditions, and lastly the Town and ANC collaboratively update the formatting of the draft planning instruments to align with the Town’s format, including defined zoning per block.

117Additionally, the Tribunal directs ANC to revert the parking requirements back to the Town’s standards as the reduction was not justified and therefore need to be revised to reflect the Town’s standards.

118The planning documents affecting the amendment and DPS include s. 2 of the Act, the PPS, the HROP, the Town OP, and the NOESP. The aforementioned planning documents have several common themes that are implemented by the revised ZBA, DPS and conditions, and proposed development, including:

• Contributes to diversifying the range and mix of housing by providing a variety of townhouse forms, medium and high density units;

• Optimizes existing municipal infrastructure by achieving the minimum density target;

• Supports active transportation through the inclusion of the Town’s trail network;

• Establishes a sense of place through the creation of a well-designed built form in a mixed-use development; and

• The efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure.

119Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the revised ZBA and DPS have regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conform to the HROP and Town OP, and has appropriate regard for the applicable guidelines. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the revised DPS has regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act and the revised conditions of DPS approval are typical, having regard for the criteria of s. 51(25) of the Act.

INTERIM ORDER

OLT-25-000339

120THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals related to the Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendment 45 and 326 in the Town of Oakville are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 121 below, and the Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle, with the following modifications:

• Policy 7.6.6.4 (c)

Minimum Density

The Neyagawa Urban Core Area shall achieve an overall minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The general target proportion should be 85% residents and 15% jobs.

This minimum density target should be achieved through the application of minimum target densities per block, measured across the entire block, as identified in Figure 7.6.6.2:

i) Block 1 – 200 residents and jobs combined per ha

ii) Block 2 – 160 residents and jobs combined per ha

iii) Block 3 –160 residents and jobs combined per ha

iv) Block 5 - 160 residents and jobs combined per ha

• Policy 7.6.6.4 (d)

Building Heights

i. Residential and mixed use development within 30 metres from the north side of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway and along the east and up to the Highway 407 Lands / Fence along the west sides of Neyagawa Boulevard north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway right-of-way, shall be a minimum height of 5 storeys, excluding podium elements which may be lower.

ii. Residential and mixed use development beyond 30 metres from the north side of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway and the east and west sides of Neyagawa Boulevard north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway right-of-way, shall be a minimum height of 3 storeys. Two-storey townhouses are also permitted in Block 2 provided they shall not exceed 20% of total townhouse units and shall be removed from the Fourth Line and Neyagawa Boulevard frontages.

iii. A maximum height of 20 storeys shall be permitted north of Burnhamthorpe Road West / William Halton Parkway.

• Policy 7.6.6.7 Public Realm and Amenity

c) The locations of urban squares, promenades, connecting links, and other open spaces shall be coordinated as development progresses to ensure that these amenities are provided for residents and employees in a timely manner.

121The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the Town’s Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

• The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Official Plan Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Town Solicitor.

122The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

123If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 121 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Wednesday, June 17, 2026, the Appellants and the Town shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

124The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

OLT-24-000968

125THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals related to Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS, in the Town of Oakville are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 126 below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2, the development proposal, as contemplated in the conceptual plan for the Draft Plan of Subdivision as set out in Attachment 3, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle, with the modifications outlined in paragraph 112 and 113.

126The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon of the conclusion of the following pre-requisite matters:

• The Tribunal has received the Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Conditions submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Town Solicitor.

127The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, and the issuance of the Final Order.

128If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 126 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Wednesday, June 17, 2026, the Appellants and the Town shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

129The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.

“Kurtis Smith”

Kurtis Smith

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

Attachment 4