Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 12, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000477
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
2863167 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit development of 5 townhouse dwellings with a total of 27 residential units with frontage provided on a proposed new street
Reference Number:
Z/14544
Property Address:
4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road
Municipality/UT:
Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000477
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000477
OLT Case Name:
2863167 Ontario Inc. v. Windsor (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
2863167 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal by Approval Authority
Description:
To permit development of 5 townhouse dwellings with a total of 27 residential units with frontage provided on a proposed new street
Reference Number:
Z/14781
Property Address:
4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road
Municipality/UT:
Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000478
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000477
Heard:
April 30, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2863167 Ontario Inc.
P. Lombardi
City of Windsor
A. Farough
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
12863167 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) appealed to the Tribunal on the City of Windsor’s (“City”) absence of approvals for Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and draft Plan of Subdivision (“Subdivision”) applications affecting 4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road, Windsor (“site”).
2On this site of 0.84 hectares, the Appellant seeks approvals to replace two existing dwellings with five two-storey townhouse buildings containing a total of 27 dwellings, flanking both sides of a new public street.
3The Tribunal allows the appeals for two primary reasons: the City did not tender evidence in support of its position; and this townhouse proposal is found to exemplify “gentle intensification” that is compatible with the neighbourhood in form, density and increased traffic.
CONTEXTUAL FACTS
4Much of the Merit Hearing focussed on the planning and engineering elements of traffic, including whether the Appellant’s Traffic Impact Assessment (“TIA”) properly calculates and predicts acceptable traffic numbers. Unacceptable traffic and pedestrian safety are dominant themes in the numerous Participant Statements filed by residents near this site.
5After several revisions to the Appellant’s plans, including a substantial reduction in the proposed number of dwelling units, City planning and engineering staff supported this site’s development in their reports to City Council.
6The Neighbourhood Map (Ex. 2, p. 19) displays the site amidst an extensive, low-density neighbourhood of primarily detached dwellings. The site flanks the east side of Sixth Concession Road (“Sixth”) and the north side of Spago Crescent (“Spago”). New ingress/egress is not permitted along the east side of Sixth (addressed later), leaving Spago as the sole access, which connects through Zurich Avenue (“Zurich”) out to Holburn Street (“Holburn”).
7Sixth is a Class I Collector Road, Holburn is a Class II Collector Road, and Zurich and Spago are Local Roads.
8A roundabout is planned for the Sixth-Holburn intersection, based on existing and anticipated area-wide traffic, whether or not the townhouses are constructed on this site.
ISSUES AND FINDINGS
Traffic Impact Assessment
9The Tribunal finds, on the uncontroverted engineering evidence of Shurjeel Tunio, that the TIA adequately predicts acceptable traffic levels for the Spago-Zurich-Holburn route to and from this site. In addition, the proposed new sidewalk required along Spago will provide pedestrian safety to existing and new residents.
10This site will generate approximately 20 vehicles in or out during the morning peak hours of 7 to 9 a.m., and approximately 26 vehicles in or out during the evening peak hours of 4 to 6 p.m. (Ex. 2, p. 31). While this site will double the peak periods’ traffic along the north arm of Spagel, this street and its intersection with Zurich will accommodate such volume. Similarly, at the Zurich-Holburn intersection, this traffic will have little to no effect on the Level of Service for the calculated scenarios out to 2035 (Ex. 2, p. 17).
11City Council had requested further traffic assessment on the potential use of ingress or egress directly to Sixth (Ex. 2, p. 53). Mr. Tunio determined that it would worsen the conditions for both drivers and pedestrians on Sixth, should this site have such direct access. In addition, within the existing Official Plan (“OP”) North Roseland Planning Area policies, which apply to this site, s. 3.7.7.9 does not permit direct access to Sixth (Ex. 4, p. 1).
12In cross-examination by the City, Mr. Tunio confirmed that the TIS applied the worst case scenario to ensure that the results are conservative. Although existing traffic counts were taken during the summer school break, traffic associated with the nearby elementary school is captured in the background traffic counts.
13Of significance to the Tribunal, the City engineering staff had accepted the Appellant’s TIA and did not raise questions on the methodology used when they communicated with Mr. Tunio and reported to City Council (Ex. 1, p. 280).
14The Subdivision Conditions, agreed to by the Appellant and City staff, contain Condition 4(b) requiring a sidewalk along the west boulevard of Street A and along the north boulevard of Spago, connecting out to Zurich.
15Discussion arose during the planning evidence on the question of where the Street A sidewalk should be placed. The Applicant’s concept (Ex. 2, p. 75) displays a sidewalk on the east side to enable a direct connection to the proposed sidewalk on the north side of Spago. However, proposed Condition 4(b) requires the sidewalk “along the west boulevard” of Street A. As noted in the Conclusion below, the Tribunal will enable the City Engineer to decide on this sidewalk’s required location.
Land Use Planning
16The Tribunal received planning evidence from Thomas Storey, retained by the Appellant, and from Greg Atkinson, Deputy City Planner, appearing under summons from the Appellant.
17The Tribunal finds, on the uncontroverted planning evidence summarized below, that the proposed ZBA and Subdivision constitute good planning in the public interest.
18This infill townhouse development has due regard for the applicable provincial interests in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), including: (f) the efficient use of transportation and sewage, water and wastewater systems; (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) a full range of housing; (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; (o) the protection of public health and safety; and (p) the appropriate location of growth and development.
19The Subdivision displays due regard to s. 51(24) of the Act, including public safety, and to: (c) conformity with the OP; (d) the site’s suitability for its purpose; (d.1) while the site may not meet the affordable housing level, it is planned to offer rental housing (subject to the Appellant’s final decision); (e) the adequacy of the site’s street within the established street system; (f) a suitable lot layout; (i) adequate municipal services are available; and (j) the adequacy of nearby school sites. Conditions to the draft Subdivision are included in accordance with s. 51(25) of the Act.
20While the original City staff report based its analysis on the, then, 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, Mr. Atkinson advised that he agrees with Mr. Storey that the ZBA and Subdivision are consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”). The Tribunal accepts that the 2024 PPS places greater emphasis on housing in its Vision:
… More than anything, a prosperous Ontario will see the building of more homes for all Ontarians. This is why the province has set a goal of getting at least 1.5 million homes built by 2031. …
21Policy 2.2.1 of the PPS establishes a mandatory duty to address the supply and mix of housing (emphasis added):
Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by: …
b) permitting and facilitating: …
all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents … and
all types of residential intensification, including … new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment …
22To the Appellant’s challenge in cross-examination that the foregoing policy applies City-wide and need not apply in every case, Mr. Storey explained that each project must be evaluated against the PPS, and while he is unaware of whether the City will satisfy its overall housing demand, this site thoroughly reflects the PPS intentions for new housing options to meet local needs, including within developed areas of the City.
23The OP, Volume I, contains objectives supporting a complementary range of housing forms, promoting compact residential form, and promoting residential infill and intensification (Ex. 2, p. 85). The OP, Volume II, contains more specific policies for the North Roseland Planning Area, which area includes this site.
24The OP Volume II (Ex. 2, p. 84) directs building forms in the Low Profile Residential designation to make efficient use of existing services and infrastructure. Townhouses fronting the street are permitted along local roads, as will be accomplished here by the new public “Street A” cul-de-sac within the Subdivision, along with three units fronting directly onto Spago. Of importance here, s. 3.7.7.9 of OP Volume II states (Ex. 4, p. 1):
No additional Local Roads shall be permitted to exit onto Sixth Concession Road from the east side of Sixth Concession Road.
25In summary, the OP allows and directs intensification in the form of medium density, low-rise townhouses along local streets within existing developed areas. The proposal for this site conforms with these policy requirements. The proposed Subdivision Conditions implement the OP directions related to streets, infrastructure, cash-in-lieu of parkland, and acoustical protections, among others.
Conclusion
26In summary, the Tribunal finds that the sought ZBA and Subdivision: have regard for s. 2 and s. 51(24) of the Act; are consistent with the PPS; conform with the OP, including the North Roseland Planning Area; and represent good planning in the public interest.
27On the unanswered question of which side of Street A to establish the new sidewalk, the Tribunal will leave such determination to the discretion of the City Engineer by amending Condition 4(b)i as follows:
i. New Street A – along either the east or the west boulevard (but not both sides) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
ORDER
28The Tribunal Orders that the appeals are allowed, and:
the City of Windsor Zoning By-law No. 8600 is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, which By-law the City Clerk may format and assign a number for record keeping purposes;
the draft Plan of Subdivision, dated February 16, 2024, is approved as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, subject to the fulfillment of the Conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order; and
pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Windsor 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.
“S. Tousaw”
S. tousaw
VICE CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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