Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000211 OLT-25-000318

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

Applicant/Appellant: Farhi Holdings Corporation

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

Description: To facilitate the development of the subject lands for residential use via a plan of subdivision

Reference Number: ZN 8-23-07

Property Address: 401 Lakeview Drive

Municipality/UT: Woodstock/Oxford County

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000211

OLT Case Name: Farhi Holdings Corporation v. Woodstock (City)

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

Applicant: Farhi Holdings Corporation

Appellant: City of Woodstock

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 333

Description: To facilitate the development of the subject lands for residential use via a plan of subdivision

Reference Number: OPA 333

Property Address: 401 Lakeview Drive

Municipality/UT: Woodstock/Oxford County

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000318

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000318

OLT Case Name: Woodstock (City) v. Oxford (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant: Farhi Holdings Corporation

Appellant: City of Woodstock

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision

Description: To facilitate the development of the subject lands for residential use via a plan of subdivision

Reference Number: SB 23-02-8

Property Address: 401 Lakeview Drive

Municipality/UT: Woodstock/Oxford County

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000323

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000318

OLT Case Name: Woodstock (City) v. Oxford (County)

Heard: October 15, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Farhi Holdings Corporation

Eric Davis

City of Woodstock

Kelly Nenninger

County of Oxford

Peter Pickfield

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. bobka AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1These matters involve:

• An appeal filed by Farhi Holdings Corporation (“Applicant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) regarding the refusal by the City of Woodstock (“City”) of an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”); and,

• Appeals filed by the City pursuant to ss. 17(24) and 51(39) of the Act regarding the approval by the County of Oxford (“County”) of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPOS”), respectively.

2All three appeals relate to the property municipally known as 401 Lakeview Drive (“Subject Property”).

3The proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property initially contemplated 270 residential units, comprising a mix of semi-detached units, stacked townhouse units and apartment units on three blocks, with a block for public park purposes and a block for stormwater management, served by one new public local street connection from Lakeview Drive to County Road 59 (Vansittart Avenue).

4The Parties appeared before the Tribunal to jointly present a settlement for consideration.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

5The Subject Property is currently vacant, is on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lakeview Drive and County Road 59, and is part of the Alder Grange neighbourhood. It is 3.89 hectares (“ha”) in area and has approximately 173.6 metres (“m”) of frontage on County Road 59 and approximately 214.4 m of frontage on Lakeview Drive.

6The Subject Property is:

• At a prominent intersection within an established residential community in the northwest part of the City;

• Within walking distance to several parks, recreation, and commercial land uses;

• Designated as part of the “Large Urban Centre” of Woodstock on Schedule “C-3” (Settlement Strategy Plan) in the County Official Plan (“County OP”), and further designated “Community Facility” on Schedule “W-1” in the City’s Land Use Plan; and

• Zoned “Community Facility” (“CF”) in the City Zoning By-law No. 8626-10 (“ZBL”).

7The Subject Property is surrounded by:

• North: single-detached and semi-detached dwellings;

• East: single-detached dwellings;

• South: Lakeview Drive and municipally and privately held 0.3 m reserves; and

• West: County Road 59.

8To the west of County Road 59 is a low-density residential subdivision under construction, with a commercial plaza at the intersection of Lakeview Drive and County Road 59. Slightly further to the west, at 325 Lakeview Drive, is a five-storey apartment building.

BACKGROUND

9The following is a summary of the key dates relating to the appeals:

September 19, 2023

A ZBA application was submitted to the City, and accompanying applications for an OPA and a DPOS were submitted to the County, on behalf of the Applicant.

October 24, 2024

Revised applications were submitted to the City and County, respectively.

February 20, 2025

City planning staff issued a Planning Report, recommending that the City support the applications for the OPA and DPOS, and approve the ZBA, in principle.

On that same day, City Council received the Planning Report, as well as written and oral submissions. City Council decided not to support the OPA and DPOS applications, and to refuse the ZBA application.

March 12, 2025

The Applicant appealed the City Council’s refusal of the ZBA application to this Tribunal.

March 26, 2025

County Council considered the applications for the OPA and DPOS. County Council adopted the OPA and granted Draft Plan approval to the DPOS.

April 21, 2025

The City appealed the proposed OPA and DPOS to this Tribunal.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

10In making a decision on these appeals, the Tribunal must be satisfied that they are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conform to / do not conflict with applicable provincial plans.

11For the ZBA appeal, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendment conforms to applicable Official Plans, in this case, the County OP.

12With respect to the DPOS, the Tribunal must also have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, and pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act, the Tribunal may also consider and impose conditions that are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed subdivision.

13In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, and in general, have regard for the related decisions of the municipality, and be satisfied that the proposed instruments represent good planning and are in the public interest.

HEARING

14Jay McGuffin is a Registered Professional Planner and member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Planners Institute with over 28 years of professional planning experience. Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty form, the Tribunal qualified Mr. McGuffin to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

15Neither the City nor the County provided evidence at the Hearing. They both support the proposed settlement.

EVIDENCE

Proposal Considered by City Council and County Council

16As described in Mr. McGuffin’s Affidavit, the proposed instruments presented to City Council and County Council responded to feedback from the public and from City and County staff regarding:

• Building Height, Density, and Location;

• Parking;

• Parkland, Impact on Natural Environment, and Loss of Perimeter Trees;

• Access to County Road 59; and

• Location of Stormwater Management Block.

17The following concept plan was provided for consideration:

(Exhibit 1, page 608)

18Modifications to the proposal included, but were not limited to:

• Repositioning one seven-storey apartment building to front onto County Road 59, in alignment with the other seven-storey apartment building, which places high‑density development along the major street and creates a transition in height and scale toward the existing Alder Granger subdivision;

• Increasing parking spaces for the apartment units to 1.5 spaces, from 1.27 spaces, while reducing the apartment units from 196 units (98 units/building) down to 160 units (80 units/building);

• Increasing the number of medium-density, four-storey stacked townhouses to 68 units, whereas 48 units were originally planned;

• Introducing underground parking for part of the apartment parking to decrease the amount of surface parking and soften the visual impact;

• Increasing the Parkland Block to 0.184 ha (a dedication of 5% of the Subject Property) and moving it to the east, away from the intersection of County Road 59 and Lakeview Drive, which aligns it with adjacent parkland to the south, ensures public access, and provides a visual focal point for the proposal; and

• Using a “pork chop” island to support right-in / right-out access onto County Road 59.

19In summary, this revised proposal contemplated 26 semi-detached dwellings, 68 four-storey stacked townhome units, and two seven-storey apartment buildings containing 160 apartment units. In total, 254 dwelling units were proposed, a reduction of 16 dwelling units from the original proposal.

20As stated by Mr. McGuffin, the purposes of the instruments are as follows:

• The OPA application would redesignate the Subject Property to low, medium, and high-density residential, and open space to facilitate a mix of low, medium, and high-density residential development, as well as one parkland block, and a storm water management pond.

A site-specific policy is also proposed that would permit a maximum residential density of 75 units per ha (“units/ha”) for the medium-density townhouse blocks, (where currently 70 units/ha is the maximum permitted), and a maximum residential density of 151 units/ha for the proposed high-density residential block, (where 150 units/ha is the maximum permitted). The low-density block has a density of 25 units/ha, with the overall blended density of the development being 65.5 units/ha. At full build out, a total of 254 units are contemplated.

• The ZBA application would rezone the Subject Property from ‘Community Facility Zone (CF)’ to ‘Residential Zone 2 (R2)’, ‘Special Residential Zone 3 (R3-sp)’, ‘Special Residential Zone 4 (R4-sp)’, and ‘Special Active Use Open Space Zone (OS2-sp)’.

• The DPOS application would create five blocks served by one new local street, consisting of:

i. One low-density block for 26 semi-detached dwellings;

ii. One medium-density block for 68 stacked townhouses;

iii. One high-density block for two seven-storey apartment buildings (consisting of 80 units each, for a total of 160 units);

iv. One park block; and

v. One storm water management block (“collectively, “Blocks”).

Revised Proposal

21On August 13, 2024, the Parties agreed to resolve the appeals, entered into Minutes of Settlement and agreed to bring the proposed settlement to the Tribunal for consideration.

22In response to issues identified through the appeals, Mr. McGuffin highlighted the following key modifications to the DPOS:

• Realignment of proposed Street “A” and Lakeview Drive Intersection: Proposed Street “A” has been shifted approximately 9 m to the east to align with the existing 20 m-wide opening in the privately owned 0.3 m reserve along the north side of Lakeview Drive.

• Reconfiguration of the Stormwater Management (“SWM”) Pond: Due to the realignment of Street “A”, the SWM pond has been reshaped to narrow and elongate in order to maintain an appropriate area for SWM containment.

• Changes to Block Areas: As a result of the shift of Street “A” to the east and the change in the shape of the SWM Pond Block (Block 5), the Semi-Detached Block (Block 1) was reduced in land area by 0.13 ha, and the Medium Density Block (Block 2) was expanded in land area by 0.109 ha.

• Replacement of Four-Storey Stacked Townhomes with Two-Storey Townhomes: In response to concerns from neighbouring residents on the south side of Lakeview Drive, the previously proposed four-storey stacked townhome blocks along Lakeview Drive have been replaced with two-storey townhomes, which will complement the existing building height. These units will be reverse frontage, with driveway access provided internally to the rear, eliminating the need for driveway access across the 0.3 m private reserve along Lakeview Drive. The ZBA instrument has been modified to restrict height to two storeys within 28 m of Lakeview Drive.

• Preserving existing traffic island in Lakeview Drive Right-of-Way: It was the City’s preference to preserve the existing traffic island, and the realignment of Street “A” access to Lakeview Drive enables this. As such, the DPOS was amended to fully preserve the existing traffic island.

As a result of the modifications detailed above, the total proposed unit count decreases from 254 units to 246 units.

23Mr. McGuffin stated that, as a result of the revisions to the DPOS, minor technical amendments were made to the OPA and ZBA, specifically:

• The OPA was updated to ensure that Schedule “W-1” – City of Woodstock Land Use Plan, Schedule “W-3” – City of Woodstock Density Plan, and Schedule “W-4” – City of Woodstock Resources and School Facilities Plan are consistent with the Blocks’ limits identified in the revised DPOS.

• The ZBA was revised to ensure that the proposed zones (‘R2’, ‘R3- 64’, ‘R4-21’, ‘OS2-9’, and ‘OS1’) correspond with the Blocks delineated in the revised DPOS. The Special Provisions applicable to the R3-64 Zone, including Front Yard Depth, Exterior Side Yard Width, Interior Side Yard Width, and Rear Yard Depth, were further amended to establish the east-west leg of proposed Street “A” as the front lot line for Block 2, rather than Lakeview Drive, as originally interpreted. This technical amendment was necessary to properly reflect and recognize the existence of the 0.3 m private reserve along Lakeview Drive.

Participant Statements

24The Tribunal received Participant Statements from 86 Participants who expressed various concerns with the proposed development. In his Affidavit and oral testimony, Mr. McGuffin provided a detailed response to these concerns.

25The Tribunal reviewed and considered all concerns; however, it highlights the following responses of Mr. McGuffin:

Population Density, Community Impact, and Compatibility

• The proposal was revised by reducing the overall unit count from 254 to 246 units, lowering the blended residential density to 63.2 units/ha, and repositioning the highest-density buildings away from the existing low-density homes to ensure a more gradual transition in built form and intensity.

• The proposal respects the surrounding context and supports a mix and range of housing options.

• Semi-detached dwellings are adjacent to the existing homes to preserve compatibility with these existing semi-detached and single detached homes to the north.

• Stacked townhouses and apartment buildings are located along arterial roads and buffered by landscaped areas.

• Townhomes (located on the north side of Lakeview Drive) are reduced from four to two storeys to fit with the surrounding dwellings and are buffered by the landscaped median along Lakeview Drive. These townhomes have a reverse front orientation with active frontages on Lakeview Drive, ensuring that the street is animated and rear yards do not back onto the public realm.

• The existing zoning currently permits more intensive uses (i.e. hospitals) to a maximum of eight storeys as-of-right, with no requirement to set back from existing areas or to blend with the adjacent residences.

• The park block is enlarged to 0.18 ha to satisfy the 5% parkland dedication which will enhance public space and connectivity.

• There is a 3:1 replacement ratio for removed trees to address tree preservation and compensation.

Traffic and Road Safety

• A Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) was conducted and found that the proposed development would not negatively impact traffic operations and that key intersections would maintain a satisfactory Level of Service within a 10-year horizon.

• Planning staff confirmed in their Planning Report (CP 2025-79) that, as specified in the peer-reviewed TIS, no negative impacts to surrounding transportation networks are expected.

• The TIS recommends a reduction to the speed limit on Lakeview Drive from 50 kilometres per hour (“km/h”) to 40 km/h to mitigate sight line constraints and improve safety.

• The proposal is revised (and conditionally approved by the County) to provide a “right-in/right-out” entrance on County Road 59, which is implemented by a “pork-chop” median to prevent left turns. This entrance and the main access on Lakeview Drive meet the required sight distances for safe operation.

• The intersection of Street “A” and Lakeview Drive has shifted approximately 9 m to the east, which will align with the existing 20 m-wide opening outside of a privately held reserve.

• Per the Minutes of Settlement, the landscape traffic island on Lakeview Drive will be fully preserved.

• The Subject Property is walkable, with sidewalks on both sides of County Road 59 and Lakeview Drive as well as proximity to the Hickson Trail and cycling lanes.

• School bus pick-up will continue to be coordinated by local school boards.

Parking

• A Traffic Impact and Parking Study was conducted and found no adverse effects on local road networks. The proposal includes sufficient on-site parking (2 spaces per townhouse, 1.5 per apartment unit) as well as underground parking to reduce surface impact.

• There will continue to be on-street parking within an 18 m right-of-way.

• As a result of the reduced unit count (from 254 to 246 units) and decrease in site density (from 65.5 to 63.2 units/ha), the number of vehicular parking spaces provided has been changed accordingly, in keeping with the requirements of the ZBL for parking spaces, visitor parking, and accessible parking.

• By locating the apartment buildings close to the front and exterior side lot line it creates a street wall along County Road 59 and screens surface parking from view.

Infrastructure and Public Services

• It was confirmed in the Planning Report that there is adequate servicing through the existing municipal infrastructure for water, sewage, and stormwater systems.

• Access for emergency services is supported by the secondary access point at County Road 59, which will also reduce congestion at the main intersection.

• The Subject Property is near existing community facilities (i.e. pharmacy, dental office, convenience store), parks, and recreational areas.

Environmental Concerns

• Regarding loss of green space, the proposal has a designated park block and a stormwater management block, which are both zoned ‘Open Space’, and will maintain recreational and ecological functions on the Subject Property. The proposal features landscaping and amenity areas to ensure the retention of natural features, where possible. The City will also require the planting of trees within the public boulevards.

• There will be landscaped open space throughout Block 3, with landscaped areas in front of each apartment building and along the edges of the parking lot.

• The proposal will be serviced by existing municipal waste collection systems, and site plan control will address maintenance and cleanliness standards.

• In terms of noise pollution, a Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study concluded that noise impacts from adjacent roads will be sufficiently managed through mitigation measures (such as acoustic barriers, upgraded building construction, and central air conditioning for affected units).

• The Subject Property does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, significant natural heritage features; however, the impact on existing vegetation will be minimized and any trees removed will be compensated for in keeping with the Tree Preservation Report.

• Stormwater management will comply with City standards to mitigate any environmental impacts.

Zoning and By-law Compliance

• The proposed zoning changes were reviewed by City planning staff, who concluded that the changes are appropriate and conform to the County OP.

• The proposed zoning is supported by the proposal’s location at the intersection of an arterial and collector road, and adjacent to existing medium and high-density uses and commercial services. There is also an appropriate transition from low to high-density and acceptable access and infrastructure capacity, as confirmed through various technical studies.

• Special zoning provisions, such as adjustments to yard depths, lot sizes, and parking requirements, were found to be reasonable and would not negatively impact surrounding properties.

• Additionally, reduced setbacks are internal to the development and generally adjacent to public streets or open space, rather than existing dwellings, further minimizing potential impacts.

• The increases to building heights and density are modest, contribute to housing supply and affordability goals and are consistent with the County OP policies for medium and high-density residential areas.

• The subdivision layout provides a transition from low to high-density residential uses and includes a new local street to minimize traffic impacts on existing neighbourhoods.

• As confirmed by City planning staff, the design of the subdivision complies with applicable policies and standards, including policies related to infill development, residential intensification, and road access.

• Regarding public consultation, the Applicant met the requirements of the Act, and also held a privately-initiated public engagement session. Public comments were documented, considered, and resulted in significant revisions to the proposal (including relocating apartment buildings further from existing homes, reducing the number of units, and increasing on-site parking).

Safety and Privacy

• The proposal’s internal street layout will minimize the flow of traffic through existing neighbourhoods and conforms with County OP policies for safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.

• The proposal’s transition in built form from low to high-density (with semi-detached dwellings located adjacent to existing low-density residential areas) will provide a buffer between existing homes and the proposed medium and high-density blocks.

• The low-density block did not require any relief regarding either rear yard depths or lot sizes, thereby ensuring that setbacks and spacing are in line with the established built pattern. Through the site plan process, additional measures for landscaping and screening will further mitigate privacy concerns.

• The townhomes that front on to Lakeview Drive have been reduced from four storeys to two storeys, which reduces the potential impacts on neighbours.

Overview of Planning Opinion

26It was the uncontroverted summary opinion of Mr. McGuffin that the proposal has regard for the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and meets the requirements of s. 51(24), is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the County OP, and represents sound land use planning. It was his recommendation that the Tribunal approve the proposed instruments and associated conditions.

27Mr. McGuffin stated that the proposal has regard for the matters of provincial interest. His evidence emphasized that the proposed development has regard for the:

• Orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

• Adequate provision of a full range of housing;

• Protection of public health and safety;

• Appropriate location of growth and development;

• Promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit, and to be oriented to pedestrians; and,

• Promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.

28Speaking to the PPS, Mr. McGuffin specified that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies as it will promote growth through infill and intensification in a settlement area, provide for a range and mix of attainable housing options, and effectively use existing infrastructure and municipal services in a suitable location near transit and active transportation facilities.

29Regarding the County OP, Mr. McGuffin highlighted that the proposal conforms, as it:

• Directs growth and development to a settlement area;

• Efficiently uses land, resources, existing infrastructure, and public service facilities;

• Encourages the use of active transportation and transit;

• Minimizes compatibility issues by incorporating appropriate site design and building configuration, adequate setbacks to adjacent land uses, and enhanced landscape buffering;

• Supports efficient, safe, and comprehensive road systems;

• Provides opportunities for home ownership and rental housing;

• Has regard for the surrounding neighbourhood context in terms of height, bulk, scale, and layout, by having the two-storey semi-detached dwellings back onto the existing single-detached and semi-detached dwellings effectively matching building forms and densities and directing higher-density uses towards County Road 59;

• Provides adequate control of stormwater run-off, ensuring that adjacent properties are not negatively impacted;

• Does not adversely impact local traffic operations; as traffic from the high-density residential block will be directed to Street “A” and out to County Road 59 and Lakeview Drive; and

• Provides sufficient parking to accommodate the peak parking demand.

30Mr. McGuffin explained that the proposal has regard for the criteria found in s. 51(24) of the Act, as it is in a suitable location with adequate utilities, municipal services and schools, and features appropriately shaped lots and the efficient use and conservation of energy. Further, he emphasized that it is in the public interest to provide a mix of sizes and types of additional infill housing options in the City.

31Finally, Mr. McGuffin spoke to the proposed conditions for the DPOS and opined that they were appropriate and reasonable.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

32Mr. McGuffin provided a comprehensive policy analysis throughout his oral and written evidence that the settlement proposal and proposed instruments meet the legislative requirements, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.

33The Tribunal highlights Mr. McGuffin’s statement that the proposal provides:

integrated open space, and a block layout that supports both functionality and liveability. The development represents an efficient use of land and resources, meets Provincial, County, and City growth and housing objectives, and does not constitute overdevelopment when viewed in the context of site design, policy conformity, and the need to accommodate growth within the City’s Settlement area. (Exhibit 1, page 62, paragraph 281)

34Moreover, Mr. McGuffin stated that the applications:

take into consideration the context of the surrounding built form and land uses, recognizing the five-storey apartment building located west of the Subject Property, the as-of-right zoning on the lands for up to 8 storeys for institutional uses and acknowledging the project site’s location along a County Road, near public transit, and in proximity to a number of public service facilities (including parks and recreational facilities). (Exhibit 1, page 12, paragraph 60)

35Finally, the Tribunal notes the following statement of Mr. McGuffin regarding compatibility:

… it is acknowledged that compatibility is not meant to be inclusive to or the same as existing development but instead meant to be considered consistent and in harmony with existing surrounding uses. That being said, the Subject Property is located within a developing and built-up residential area of Woodstock, surrounded by pockets of higher-density residential type uses … [In addition] the proposed mixed-density development is complementary of the building scale of the surrounding area, [and] provides for the integration of the Subject Property with the abutting land uses and the surrounding community … (Exhibit 1, page 38, paragraphs 158-159)

36The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted land use planning opinion evidence of Mr. McGuffin.

37The Tribunal reviewed the Participant Statements and the responses of Mr. McGuffin. The Tribunal finds that the proposal will facilitate high-quality, well-designed, compact built form, and thoughtful site design that provides for appropriate transition to, and integration with, the surrounding community. The Applicant has made significant changes to the proposal to address the concerns of the Participants and neighbours. Two such examples include the reduction in height from four to two storeys for the townhomes on Lakeview Drive, which improves compatibility and reduces the impact to neighbours, as well as the relocation of the second apartment building, which positions the higher-density buildings along County Road 59, away from existing development.

38The Tribunal finds that the proposal supports residential infill and intensification, will create a desirable mixture of housing units in a suitable location planned for growth, is of an appropriate type and scale, and is compatible with the surrounding community. In addition, the proposal provides much-needed housing options, supports active transportation and use of transit, addresses concerns regarding traffic, road safety and parking, and will efficiently utilize existing municipal infrastructure.

39The Tribunal agrees with Mr. McGuffin’s statement that the proposed settlement “reflects a balanced resolution of the issues and establishes a development plan that addresses matters of compatibility, safety, and policy conformity.” The Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement proposal sufficiently addresses the concerns raised by the Participants.

40The Tribunal has, in general, had regard for the related decisions of the both the City and the County.

41The Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments have regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest as found in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the County OP, and meet the criteria outlined in s. 51(24) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal finds that the proposal represents good planning, is in the public interest, and warrants approval.

42The Tribunal also finds that the proposed conditions to the DPOS are reasonable, and as a result, the Tribunal will impose the conditions.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, and that:

• The Official Plan Amendment, attached as Appendix A to this Order, is hereby approved;

• Zoning By-law No. 8626-10 is hereby amended, as set out in Appendix B to this Order; and,

• The draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Callon Dietz, dated August 12, 2025, comprising Part of Lot 5, Concession 12 (Geographic Township of East Zorra) and Part of Lot 1 Registered Plan 58 in the City of Woodstock, County of Oxford, as set out in Appendix C to this Order, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Appendix D to this Order.

44AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Oxford 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.

45The Tribunal authorizes the Clerks of the County of Oxford and City of Woodstock, respectively, to assign numbers, insert any applicable dates and format as may be necessary, the planning instruments attached hereto as Appendices A, B, C, and D to this Order, respectively, for record-keeping purposes.

46Each Party, as agreed, shall bear their own costs respecting these appeals, including the implementation of this Order.

47The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any matters arising from the implementation of this Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA

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.