Brenda and Terry Giles v. Town of Orangeville, 2026 CanLII 52475

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000561

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

Applicant/Appellant: Brenda and Terry Giles Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To facilitate the development of 12 residential units. Reference Number: OPZ-2023-01 Property Address: 11A York Street Municipality/UT: Orangeville/Dufferin OLT Case No: OLT-25-000561 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000561 OLT Case Name: Giles v. Orangeville (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Brenda and Terry Giles Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To facilitate the development of 12 residential units. Reference Number: OPZ-2023-01 Property Address: 11A York St Street Municipality/UT: Orangeville/Dufferin OLT Case No: OLT-25-000562 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000561

Heard: April 20-24, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Brenda and Terry Giles	D. Bronskill
Town of Orangeville	A. Biggart

DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Brenda and Terry Giles (“Appellants”) filed applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together referred to as “Applications”) to permit a 12-unit townhouse development on the property municipally known as 11A York Street, Orangeville (“subject property”).

2On June 18, 2025, Council for the Town of Orangeville (“Town”) issued a Notice of Refusal Decision relating to the Applications. The Appellants appealed the Town’s refusal of the OPA pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Planning Act”) and the ZBA pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act.

3These proceedings were previously the subject of a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) and have been governed by a Procedural Order and Issues List. At the CMC, Participant status was granted to Heidi Allen, Wayne Townsend and Warrington Ellacott.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

4As depicted in the image below, the subject property is unique - it is “U” shaped, with two frontages on York Street and wraps around the property municipally known as 11 York Street. It is approximately 0.73 acres in area and is currently improved with a single-storey detached dwelling. The subject property slopes to the rear with a varying depth from 87.91 metres (“m”) at York Street to an approximate depth of 100.58 m at the rear.

5The subject property is located one block south of the downtown core and uses surrounding the subject property include residential, open space and conservation lands. In addition to these uses, Tweedsmuir Presbyterian Church and the Legion are located to the east of the subject property, while the Orangeville and District Senior Citizens Centre are located to the west. Kay Cee Gardens and Mill Creek are located to the south of the subject property.

6Currently there are 27 properties along York Street, two of which are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (“Heritage Act”) and 17 of which are listed on the municipal heritage register. The remaining 8 properties, including the subject property, have no heritage status. The Town currently has one Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”) which applies to properties fronting both sides of Broadway, which is the Town’s main thoroughfare located one block north of the subject property. By-law 2002-022 to establish the Downtown Heritage Conservation District was enacted in March, 2002 (“Downtown HCD”). For clarity, the subject property is not located in the Downtown HCD.

7The County of Dufferin Official Plan (“County OP”) designates the subject property as “Primary Settlement Area” on Schedule B with a portion in the south of the subject property being identified as “Natural Heritage” on Schedule E. The Town of Orangeville Official Plan (“Town OP”) designates the subject property as “Residential” on Schedule A, “Low Density Residential” on Schedule C and “Community Improvement Plan – Residential” on Schedule D with a portion in the south of the subject property being identified as a flood prone area surrounding Mill Creek. The Town of Orangeville Zoning By-law (“Town ZBL”) zones the subject property as “Residential Second Density” (R2) Zone.

Applications and Proposal

8The purpose of the Applications is to amend the Town OP and Town ZBL to facilitate the development of 12 townhouse units on a private road accessed via York Street (“proposal”). The proposal includes two townhouse blocks consisting of seven units along the west side of an internal roadway and five units along the east side. Each townhouse unit would have two parking spaces, and an additional three visitor parking spaces would be included to service the 12 units. The proposal would require the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject property.

9The proposed OPA seeks to redesignate the south portion of the subject property from “Residential” to “Open Space Conservation” on Schedule “A” of the Town OP reflecting the limits of the floodplain area associated with Mill Creek. It further seeks to redesignate the subject property from “Low Density Residential” to “Low Density Multiple” on Schedule “C” of the Town OP.

10The proposed ZBA seeks to rezone the subject property from “Residential Second Density” (R2) Zone to “Residential Fifth Density” (R5) Zone, with site specific regulations to permit the proposal. It further seeks to rezone the south portion of the subject property to “Open Space Conservation” (OS2) Zone. A Holding (H) Zone symbol is proposed requiring satisfaction of prerequisite conditions before the Holding (H) Zone symbol can be removed.

11The Parties agree that there is no development proposed in the southern portion of the Subject Property within the Open Space area.

Relevant Timeline

12In May, 2017, Town Council was presented with the Merchants and Prince of Wales Heritage Conservation District Study (“Merchants HCD Study”) which covered a large study area adjacent to the existing Downtown HCD, and included York Street and the subject property. The Merchants HCD Study concluded that there was sufficient cultural heritage value in the area and recommended that a HCD Plan be pursued. As a result, Town Council passed by-law 2017-062 designating the area as a HCD Study area. In 2018, a draft HCD Plan was developed and a designating by-law drafted, however, it was never adopted by Town Council. On November 27, 2023, Town Council received a delegation from York Street residents to renew the HCD Study and pursue a designation specifically for the York Street area.

13On December 21, 2023 the Appellants submitted the Applications to the Town. On February 7, 2024 the Town advised the Appellants that the Applications required additional information, which was provided.

14The Applications were deemed complete on April 18, 2024 and a public meeting was held by Town Council on June 17, 2024. A number of questions and concerns were raised by Council Members and the public and in response, Town Council passed a motion to require the Appellants to submit a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) and an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) as part of a revised submission.

15On November 6, 2024, the Appellants submitted revised Applications which included, among other things, an EIS, a HIA, and a Shadow Study. The Applications went through four rounds of submissions and reviews culminating in a Planning Staff Report to Town Council dated June 9, 2025 (“2025 Staff Report”) recommending approval of the Applications.

16During the time that the Appellants were applying for the OPA and ZBA, the Town was investigating a York Street Heritage Conservation District Study (“York Street HCD Study”) and on February 10, 2025, Town Council received a Staff Report setting out a work plan and budget to conduct the York Street HCD Study, which was approved by Town Council.

17On June 9, 2025, Town Staff refused the Applications. On July 4, 2025, the Appellants appealed the refusal to the Tribunal.

18On October 27, 2025, Town Council received and approved Town Staff’s report presenting the final York Street HCD Study Report and directed Town Staff to prepare a HCD Plan (“York Street HCD Plan”) and guidelines in accordance with the Heritage Act. As of the date of the hearing, the York Street HCD Plan had not yet been presented to Town Council.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

19In support of the proposed intensification of the subject property, the Tribunal heard both planning and cultural heritage evidence. The Parties agree that the subject property is suitable for intensification, however, the disagreement lies in the timing of the proposal and the intensity of the proposal. The case is relatively straightforward in that there are two broad questions to be answered. First, is it premature to consider/approve a development proposal while the Town is engaged in a HCD process? Second, does the proposal on the subject property represent appropriate intensification? While the evidence and submissions presented to the Tribunal addressed each issue in the Issues List, the majority of the focus was on answering these two broad questions.

20The Appellants called four witnesses in total, two of whom appeared under summons. Michael Wynia was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning and Matthew Mair, who was previously employed as a Planner for the Town, appeared under summons and was also qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. Joan Crosbie was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in cultural heritage and Meaghan Rivard, who was retained by the Town to conduct a peer review of the HIA, appeared under summons and was also qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in cultural heritage.

21The Town called two witnesses, both of whom were external consultants. The Town retained Adrian Litavski to provide evidence in relation to the Applications and the Tribunal qualified him to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. The Town also retained Emad Ghattas to provide an opinion regarding the Town’s refusal of the Applications, and he was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in cultural heritage.

22In making a determination, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conform/do not conflict with the County OP and the ZBA must conform with the Town OP.

23The Tribunal must have regard for the decision made by Town Council to deny the Applications. It must also have regard for the materials and information that Town Council had before it in making its decision, which includes numerous Town Staff Reports recommending approval of the Applications. Finally, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed OPA and ZBA represent good planning and are in the public interest.

Question 1: Is The Proposal Premature?

24Simply put, the Tribunal’s finding on this question is “no.” The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Town’s arguments that it would be premature to approve a proposal in light of an ongoing HCD process in the area where the subject property is located.

25The subject property is located on York Street, where 17 of the 27 properties fronting onto York Street have been listed on the Town’s heritage register, two of which have been designated heritage pursuant to Part 4 of the Heritage Act. The subject property is one of the remaining 10 on York Street which is neither listed on the Town’s heritage register nor designated pursuant to the Heritage Act.

26The Town argued that the subject property is at the core of the proposed York Street HCD and approval of the Applications would be premature and inconsistent with the objectives of the Town, undermining the policies and attributes that the Town is attempting to achieve. The York Street HCD Plan is anticipated to go before Town Council for consideration in June 2026 and the Town submitted that the Appellants would not suffer any prejudice in waiting a few months for the process to be completed.

27Mr. Ghattas reviewed policy 4.6 of the PPS noting that cultural heritage value has been found in the York Street area and policy 4.6.1 mandates that this value be conserved. In reference to policy 4.6.3, Mr. Ghattas opined that it would be “…premature to permit development on a site that will be potentially adjacent to many protected heritage properties…”

28The Appellants disagreed with the Town, arguing that there is no certainty the York Street HCD Plan will be presented to Town Council in June 2026. If it is presented, there is no certainty as to how Town Council will proceed, and any resulting decision could be subject to appeal to the Tribunal. The Appellants emphasized that planning decisions should not be based on speculative or hypothetical future outcomes, which is effectively what the Town is asking of the Tribunal.

29Ms. Crosbie noted that the Town has been involved in some form of HCD process where the subject property is located for years. It is Ms. Crosbie’s opinion that approval of the OPA and ZBA would not be premature as there is no heritage designation by-law currently in place, the Applications have been comprehensively studied and if the Town adopts the York Street HCD Plan, the effect of such a plan is not to restrict development, but rather, to guide it. Ms. Rivard advised the Tribunal that she had no concerns if the Applications were approved while the HCD process was ongoing because one can only work with what is currently in force and a HCD process can take a significant amount of time to complete.

30The Parties agreed that cultural heritage value has been identified on York Street and the Tribunal recognizes that the Town values its heritage and has taken, and continues to take, steps to protect and preserve it. However, the Tribunal does not accept the Town’s argument that approval of the OPA and ZBA is premature due to the ongoing HCD process.

31While the Tribunal agrees that the Town’s ongoing HCD work is relevant, it is not determinative. There is no policy basis to “freeze” development on the subject property. At the time of the hearing, the York Street HCD Plan had not been presented to Town Council. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Rivard’s viva voce evidence that the York Street HCD Plan remains in draft form and not in force. As such, it carries no weight in the determination of the Applications.

32In discussing policy 4.6.3 of the PPS, Mr. Ghattas used the term “potentially” when expressing the view that development of the subject property should wait on the basis that it may, potentially, be adjacent to protected heritage properties. In the Tribunal’s view, this uncertainty supports the opposite conclusion, that development should not be delayed given the absence of any certainty regarding the future of the York Street HCD Plan. During cross examination, Mr. Ghattas conceded that the OPA and ZBA are consistent with policies 4.6.1 and 4.6.3 of the PPS as of the hearing date, as the subject property is neither a designated heritage property nor currently adjacent to any protected heritage properties.

33Pursuant to s. 40.1 of the Heritage Act, the Town had the authority to pass a by-law to “freeze” development within the study area, including the subject property, for a period of up to one year. While Town Council exercised this power during the Merchants HCD Study, it elected not to do so in the case of the current York Street HCD Study, for reasons that were not specified. The Town now seeks to have the Tribunal undertake a measure that was available to the Town itself through the imposition of a “freeze” pursuant to s. 40.1 of the Heritage Act. The Tribunal will not permit the Town to accomplish indirectly what it chose not to do directly.

34The Tribunal rejects the Town’s argument that the Tribunal’s approval of the OPA and ZBA would undermine its ongoing heritage work or cause irreversible impacts to the HCD process. No evidence was presented to substantiate any such irreversible impacts. Further, the Town’s submission that the Tribunal ought to exercise extreme caution on the basis that approval could weaken the Town’s ability to implement its planning work on York Street was not persuasive. If the risk of irreversible impacts was as significant as asserted, the Town had the option of invoking s. 40.1 of the Heritage Act, as it did during the Merchants HCD Study and as Town Council were expressly advised by Town Staff in the May 13, 2024 Planning Staff Report.

35The Tribunal is cognizant that the Town undertook a similar HCD process in 2017-2018 for a larger area, which ultimately did not result in the adoption of a HCD Plan. The Tribunal is unable to accept Mr. Ghattas’ evidence that the similarity between the Merchants HCD Study and the York Street HCD Study demonstrates an intention on the part of Town Council to proceed with a York Street HCD Plan in this instance. To the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the similarity between the two processes underscores the potential for indefinite delay. It would be unfair to the Appellants, and any applicants, to hold planning applications in the York Street HCD Study area indefinitely pending a decision from Town Council which may or may not be made. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that consideration of the Applications at this time is neither premature nor inappropriate, and the Tribunal will not delay consideration of the Planning Act matter pending the potential completion of a municipal heritage process.

Question 2: Does The Proposal on the Subject Property Represent Appropriate Intensification?

36The Appellants’ position is that the proposal represents modest and appropriate intensification on the currently underutilized subject property. The Appellants note that the Applications have undergone a rigorous process which culminated in Town staff producing the 2025 Staff Report to Town Council recommending approval of the OPA and ZBA. As set out by Mr. Wynia in his viva voce evidence, the unique attributes of the subject property provide an opportunity for intensification in a settlement area with full urban amenities. The proposal will remove an existing structure that does not contribute to the context of the community and replace it in a sensitive manner with a compatible development.

37The Town’s position, which was supported by the Participants, was that the intensity of the proposal was inappropriate for the subject property and better directed to intensification areas which had been designated in the Town OP. The Town acknowledges that some intensification on the subject property is appropriate as it is located in a settlement area, is within the built boundary and many planning policies encourage settlement area growth, housing diversity and intensification. However, the Town argued that when read together with other policies relating to compatibility, context-sensitive built form, orderly development and conservation of heritage resources and heritage areas, the proposal on the subject property is too intensive, does not fit the existing or planned context and does not represent good planning.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

38Mr. Wynia reviewed the relevant subsections of s. 2 of the Planning Act and in his opinion, the proposal appropriately addresses each of these requirements. With respect to ss. 2(p) and (r), he noted that the subject property is located in a settlement area which is fully serviced and in close proximity to transit, the downtown and community services. Further, as set out in the Urban Design Report, the proposal is well-designed through its careful attention to the placement and massing of the townhouses, along with the proposed construction materials and landscaping.

39Mr. Litavski referred to the “regard for” test under s. 2, which he noted was a broad test. In his opinion, some intensification is warranted on the subject property, however, when looking at all of the relevant policies, the proposal represents overdevelopment that will result in inappropriate adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

40The PPS defines complete communities as follows:

Complete communities: means places such as mixed-use neighbourhoods or other areas within cities, towns, and settlement areas that offer and support opportunities for equitable access to many necessities for daily living for people of all ages and abilities, including an appropriate mix of jobs, a full range of housing, transportation options, public service facilities, local stores and services. Complete communities are inclusive and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts to meet the diverse needs of their populations.

41Mr. Wynia explained that in his view, the term “complete communities” does not apply to neighbourhoods with a sole land use, for example, only single detached housing. Rather, and in this case in particular, a complete community means the relationship to the downtown core, parks and community services which are all within a few blocks of the subject property. In his review of policy 2.1.6, Mr. Wynia explained that the proposal on the subject property is a perfect example of how a municipality can achieve a complete community. It is a design which sensitively introduces higher density housing onto a site while respecting existing uses in the area.

42Mr. Wynia reviewed policies 2.2.1(b), (d) and (e) of the PPS wherein the province encourages all types of residential intensification to meet current and future needs of residents. He concluded that the subject property is appropriate for intensification and, given its unique shape, offers an opportunity to do so at the rear of the lot which will not impact the streetscape of York Street. Mr. Wynia noted that the zoning on the subject property allows for intensification of up to 25 units per residential hectare, or 7 units as of right. One cannot assume that 7 units would have less massing or greater setbacks than what is proposed and greater density will ultimately assist in better meeting the needs of residents than what is permitted as of right.

43Mr. Litavski reviewed policies 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 which speak to the achievement of complete communities. He explained that one must look to the immediate and broader context as built form, height and density may be appropriate in one location and inappropriate in another. Mr. Litavski opined that good land use planning looks to, and relies upon, context. In this case, the proposal on the subject property is overdevelopment that is inconsistent with its context and as such, is not consistent with the PPS vision for complete communities. Mr. Litavski’s position on consistency with the PPS was challenged during cross examination wherein he acknowledged that the proposal was consistent with the operative policies of the PPS but maintained that the proposal was inconsistent with the PPS as a whole.

44The Tribunal was persuaded by Mr. Wynia’s evidence, particularly regarding the proposal’s contribution to the creation of complete communities. The proposal would introduce a new higher density housing form into a well situated neighbourhood with access to transit, downtown and community and commercial services. The PPS definition of complete communities states that “complete communities are inclusive and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts to meet the diverse needs of their populations.” Despite the Tribunal’s finding on the PPS policies, as further discussed below, the proposal falls short of being contextually appropriate when taking a wholistic view of the evidence.

County OP

45The subject property falls within both the Built Boundary and Settlement Area of the Town pursuant to Schedule B1 of the County OP. The Appellants emphasized that one objective of the County OP is to have settlement areas which are on full municipal services accommodate most of the urban development. The subject property meets this objective. Mr. Wynia explained that settlement areas are meant to support the achievement of complete communities and municipalities should consider developments, such as the proposal, that incorporate a diverse range of housing. Mr. Mair noted that the Town is the largest settlement area in the County and the OPA and ZBA conform with the County OP policies and will assist the County to achieve its minimum intensification targets.

46Mr. Wynia explained that many of the County OP policies become repetitive of provincial policies encouraging efficient use of land with access to municipal services in close proximity to the downtown area. The provincial policies relating to complete communities and diverse range of housing are repeated in policy 3.1(a) of the County OP. Mr. Wynia went into further detail explaining that the proposal intensifies the subject property in a sensitive manner fostering a more inclusive and vibrant complete community. It is designed to complement the character of the neighbourhood with townhouses fronting onto a private lane set back from York Street to ensure the cohesive streetscape remains while adding additional housing to accommodate a wider range of residents. Mr. Wynia opined that the OPA and ZBA that facilitate the proposal respond to polices 3.1(d) and (e) of the County OP through the efficient use of land and resources with the introduction of a mixed land use in an appropriate location at an appropriate density which is compatible with the area. During cross examination, Mr. Wynia was taken to policy 3.1(d) and (e) and he agreed that the word “appropriate” was repeatedly used and acknowledged that the Tribunal must consider whether the proposal is at an appropriate density and is in an appropriate location.

47Policy 3.3.2 states that Urban Settlement Areas will be the focus of growth and development, which Mr. Wynia testified indicates the need to make use of sites like the subject property in the best way possible. In his opinion, the applicable tests set out in policy 3.3.2 identifying where intensification should occur are met by the proposal as the subject property is in an urban settlement area, is currently on municipal services, will assist in increasing densities and housing types in proximity to local transit, and will not negatively impact the historic downtown.

48Policy 3.4, particularly 3.4.2, sets out policies to assist municipalities in assessing applications for intensification. The County encourages intensification in built up areas as it recognizes that intensification opportunities are limited in the County. Mr. Wynia opined that the proposal meets the criteria set out in policy 3.4.2, including its appropriate scale and lack of impact on the existing neighbourhood stability. During cross examination, Mr. Wynia agreed that the Tribunal must consider scale, height and density and turn its mind to protecting the existing stable neighbourhood.

49In Mr. Wynia’s opinion, appropriate use of land suggests slightly higher density is appropriate and the proposal is a modest increase in density which is appropriate and fits within the context of the site and the surrounding community with no negative impacts. Overall, he opined that the OPA and ZBA would facilitate a proposal that is a wise use of the subject property and conforms with the policies of the County OP.

50Overall, Mr. Litavski noted that the subject property was an appropriate location for some level of intensification, but not to the extent proposed by the Appellants. He highlighted policies 3.1 (d) and (e) which promote development patterns in settlement areas and encourage opportunities for intensification through appropriate densities and in appropriate locations. In Mr. Litavski’s opinion, the proposal represents overdevelopment resulting in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties that is not in keeping with the York Street character.

51Similar to the goal of the PPS to facilitate the creation of complete communities, policy 3.3.1 of the County OP leaves it up to municipalities and their local Official Plans to identify where intensification should occur. Mr. Litavski testified that the Town has identified intensification areas on Schedule B of the Town OP and the subject property is not located in these areas. Mr. Litavski pointed to policy 3.3.1(g)(iii) of the County OP directing municipalities to identify appropriate locations for intensification concluding that the proposal on the subject property is not appropriate and does not meet this policy.

52Mr. Litavski noted that policy 3.3.2 is a further example of the many policies encouraging intensification but opined that this does not mean other policies should be overridden in order to maximize intensification on a site. A balance must be achieved to ensure intensification is appropriate to its context and is in the public interest. Mr. Litavski reviewed the criteria set out in policy 3.4.2 which puts the responsibility for planning for intensification on municipalities. Mr. Litavski emphasized policy 3.4.2(b) which notes that intensification will be encouraged subject to other policies which include the protection of existing stable neighbourhoods.

53The Tribunal finds that the use of the word “appropriate” in policies 3.1(d) and (e) signifies that the legislature intended decision makers to consider the appropriateness of proposed densities in relation to the context of the areas in which intensification is being proposed. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Litavski that context is a key consideration and further agrees that adverse impacts on neighbouring properties resulting from the proposal are avoidable. The policies permit intensification of the subject property with 25 units / net residential hectare, resulting in 7 units. The subject property can be intensified in a way that avoids adverse impacts on adjacent properties leading the Tribunal to conclude that the proposed 12 units in a low-rise built form as proposed is simply too much. It is an inappropriate density in an inappropriate location which conflicts with policies 3.1(d) and (e) of the County OP.

54Through policy 3.3.1, the County has given municipalities the task of deciding where intensification should occur by identifying intensification areas in local official plans. The Town has done this in Schedule B of the Town OP. Although the subject property is not located within one of these designated intensification areas, the Tribunal agrees with the parties that some level of intensification is still appropriate on the site. However, the proposal seeks a density of approximately 70% higher than what the Town ZBL permits. While exceeding permissions to this extent is not necessarily determinative, it is persuasive. The Tribunal cannot agree with Mr. Wynia’s opinion that the proposal is a modest (emphasis added) increase in density. The evidence demonstrated that the proposed density is significant and cannot fit within the context of the site or the surrounding community. Ultimately, the Tribunal finds that the proposed level of density is too high and not appropriate for the subject property.

Town OP

55The goals of the Town OP are outlined in Section B2. Mr. Wynia noted that apartment buildings already exist within the Town, including one located across Kay Cee Gardens from the subject property. He reviewed the Town OP goals and emphasized that the proposal would maintain the small town charm of the Town. He highlighted that the proposal is a low rise development and the presence of existing apartment buildings demonstrates that mid rise forms can be compatible while still preserving small town charm.

56The general policies of the Town OP are set out in Section D. Mr. Wynia opined that the proposal responds to these policies which encourage higher densities in proximity to the downtown area. He noted that the unique characteristics of the subject property enable the proposal to be located at the rear of the site in order to fit with the neighbourhood and the planned context. Furthermore, the proposal helps achieve the residential objectives of the Town by providing a diverse range of housing options, while minimizing impacts on the streetscape by setting the townhouses back from the street.

57Section D4 of the Town OP sets out policies related to heritage resources. Ms. Crosbie was retained by the Town to conduct a scoped HIA relating to potential impacts that the Applications would have on 11 York Street, situated adjacent to the subject property and listed on the Town’s Heritage Register. Ms. Crosbie reviewed properties adjacent to the subject property to establish the streetscape and the character of the street. In her opinion, the proposal is sympathetic to the area as the building height of 3 storeys visually appears as 2 storeys from York Street due to the sloping topography and as such, does not overwhelm the streetscape. Ms. Crosbie recognized that there will be some impacts resulting from the proposal, but she testified they can be mitigated through the use of complementary materials and the replacement and addition of plantings to mitigate visual impacts in the winter when there are no tree canopies.

58The HIA determined that there were no known direct impacts to 11 York Street arising from the proposal, and any indirect impacts could be mitigated with sympathetic design elements, a landscape plan that includes planting of similar species of trees that are found in the York Street area, and a designated construction staging area. Ms. Crosbie acknowledged during cross examination that she did not know that building materials could not be addressed through an OPA and ZBA.

59Overall, it was Ms. Crosbie’s opinion that the proposal would improve the existing condition of the subject property and make it more sympathetic to the neighbourhood. During cross examination, the Town highlighted the fact that the HIA was scoped rather than fulsome and did not include reference to the ongoing HCD process. Ms. Crosbie confirmed that Town Staff had requested a scoped HIA and that she had not been informed by Town Staff of the existence of the York Street HCD Study.

60Ms. Rivard explained that the Town does not have a heritage planner on staff and as such, her firm has a retainer with the Town to provide advice on heritage matters. In that regard, Ms. Rivard conducted a peer review of the HIA. Ms. Rivard provided a positive review of the HIA with some recommendations, which included that the revised final HIA identify potential heritage qualities of other adjacent properties in addition to 11 York Street. During her viva voce evidence, Ms. Rivard confirmed that she had reviewed the final scoped HIA in preparation for the hearing and had no concerns with its findings.

61Mr. Mair reviewed various staff reports, including the June 9, 2025 report which he authored, recommending Town Council approve the OPA and ZBA and pass by-laws to permit the proposal. Mr. Mair testified that the OPA and ZBA conform with the intent of relevant policies in the Town OP balancing intensification while respecting policies surrounding heritage resources. He noted that the HIA did not identify significant impacts to adjacent properties and Town staff ensured inclusion of site-specific provisions in the OPA requiring traditional architectural features to be incorporated in any future development on the subject property.

62The Appellants argued that compatibility with adjacent buildings and residential areas is a key test when considering intensification as set out in sections D7.2.4(d) and E1.12.4 of the Town OP. In response, Mr. Mair opined that the proposal’s significant setback from York Street combined with the sloping topography of the subject property limited any adverse impacts to the neighbourhood character along York Street. With respect to compatibility with adjacent properties, Mr. Mair testified that the orientation of the townhouses adequately mitigated potential overlook and privacy issues. While the permitted side yard setback is 1.5 m, because the townhouses are oriented along the private road a rear yard to side yard condition is created. As such, the newly created rear yard setback to adjacent properties would be 5.5 m, as opposed to 1.5 m if it remained as a side yard condition.

63The Appellants argued that the Town’s concerns related to privacy and overlook were exaggerated given the existing openness of the rear yards. There currently are views from Kay Cee Gardens into many rear yards along York Street. Further, there were no privacy or overlook concerns highlighted in any of the staff reports or the peer review of the Urban Design Study. In his review of the York Street area, Mr. Wynia noted that there were existing overviews on almost every rear yard along York Street due to the downward sloping topography which resulted in overlook from Kay Cee Gardens, the multi-residential complex to the east and the apartment building.

64Mr. Wynia testified that the Town ZBL currently permits 7 units to be constructed on the subject property, however, he noted that this would not necessarily result in better massing than what is being proposed. He further testified that given the subject property’s unique attributes, intensification of the subject property will inevitably lead to structures and built form at the rear of the property accessed via a private road off of York Street.

65The Parties agreed that some form of residential intensification on the subject property is permitted by the existing planning framework. The Town emphasized that 7 units are currently permitted on the subject property which would result in a less intense and less intrusive form of development. The Appellants’ request for 12 units, in the Town’s submission, represents a fundamental change that is materially different than what exists or what the policies permit and will result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

66Mr. Ghattas’ evidence regarding cultural heritage focused on the potential emerging policy coming out of the York Street HCD Study, which has been addressed above. During cross examination, Mr. Ghattas opined that in the absence of an approved York Street HCD Plan, the proposal conforms with the cultural heritage policies of the County OP and the Town OP.

67Mr. Litavski and Mr. Ghattas reviewed the D7 goals set out in the Town OP. Mr. Litavski noted that the proposal is not compatible with policy D7.2 of the Town OP which requires new development to be massed to fit harmoniously into its surroundings and minimize impacts on neighbouring buildings and open space. The proposal would introduce a new built form into the centre of an otherwise established residential area and place 12 townhouse units into the backyard of the subject property which does not respect the prevailing pattern of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space.

68A significant amount of hearing time was devoted to privacy impacts resulting from the rear windows and rear yards of the proposed townhouses into the rear yards of adjacent properties. The Town argued that the proposed density and new flanking condition would result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Mr. Litavski explained that the proposal would result in multiple three-storey units directly overlooking the rear yards of 13 York Street and 7 York Street, with large windows on each level increasing the intrusion into adjacent rear yards. These adverse impacts will be exacerbated by the proposed site specific reduced 5.5 m setback from each side lot. During cross examination, Mr. Litavski acknowledged that aside from density concerns, the proposed townhouses would be at a lower grade and be largely hidden from York Street, minimizing their visual impact from the street.

69Mr. Ghattas explained that policy D7.2.4 speaks about different components that respect the character of established neighbourhoods, noting that the potential York Street HCD Plan will provide guidance on how these items can be conserved. During cross examination, Mr. Ghattas agreed that there would be minimal impact from the proposal on York Street and that many items such as rear setbacks, side setbacks and views/vistas all may change if the York Street HCD Plan gets approved.

70Mr. Litavski reviewed policy E1.12 of the Town OP which sets out the process for the Town to follow in identifying new intensification areas. During cross examination, Mr. Litavski agreed that policy E1.12.2 (a) and (b) apply and are met for selection of intensification areas under the Town OP. Mr. Litavski explained that once E1.12 is met, Town Council would consider the list of criteria set out in policy E1.12.4 and in his opinion, the proposal is not compatible with adjacent buildings and adjacent residential areas and as such, the intent of policy E1.12 has not been satisfied. He explained that there are better ways to achieve intensification on the subject property, noting that the existing permission of 25 units / residential hectare resulting in 7 units is reasonable. Overall, Mr. Litavski’s opinion is that the OPA and ZBA do not conform to the intent of the Town OP policies and are not good land use planning.

71The Parties were ad idem that the subject property is unique, is appropriate for some level of intensification and that the proposal would not negatively impact the view along York Street. The Tribunal agrees. The sloping topography of the subject property allows development to occur without impacting the views along York Street. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed driveway would improve the views and vistas from York Street through the subject property to Kay Cee Gardens.

72The Tribunal heard from the witnesses, and agrees, that the heritage character of York Street is relevant to the planning considerations, however the subject property and adjacent properties do not have any status under the Heritage Act. Further, Ms. Crosbie’s evidence largely focused on how indirect impacts could be mitigated with sympathetic design elements and landscaping, which are matters to be discussed at the site plan stage, if the Applications are approved.

73Similar to the Town’s pride in its heritage and the steps taken to protect same, the evidence also demonstrated that the Town has been careful to identify areas where intensification should be directed. The subject property is not within an area identified by the Town for intensification. The Tribunal finds that approval of the OPA and ZBA that will facilitate the proposal is not compatible with, nor does it improve, the local character. The York Street area is a well established low-density residential neighbourhood characterized by single-family dwellings situated on large lots. The proposal is approximately 70% higher density than what is permitted by the Town ZBL, which is significant. As discussed above, while a 70% increase may not be determinative, the impact of such an increase is persuasive.

74The Tribunal found the Town’s witnesses to be more persuasive than Mr. Mair and Mr. Wynia. While Mr. Mair opined that the orientation of the proposed townhouses would mitigate potential issues related to overlook and privacy, the Tribunal reached the opposite conclusion. It determined that the layout would actually exacerbate these concerns. Specifically, the placement of townhouses along the private road creates a rear yard to side yard flanking condition with adjacent properties, resulting in unacceptable negative impacts on privacy and overlook. The Tribunal noted that if the proposal maintained a side yard to side yard orientation with adjacent properties, the impacts would be significantly lessened and may in fact meet the intent of the D7 goals set out in the Town OP.

75The Appellants seek to amend the zoning designation from R2 to R5, together with additional site specific exceptions, as the proposal does not comply with the current R5 permissions. The Tribunal cannot disregard the “density issue”, as it was put to Mr. Litavski in cross examination. The Tribunal finds that the proposed density, when considered in conjunction with the negative impacts arising from the orientation of the townhouses, fails to conform with the intent of the policies set out in the Town OP.

76The Town submitted that Yonge Lawrence Dev LP v. Toronto (City), December 13, 2017 CanLII 85742 (ON LPAT), (per D. Lanthier) (“Yonge Lawrence”) was factually similar to the appeal at hand and the Ontario Municipal Board found that one cannot grant paramountcy to the broad intensification policies in the PPS and minimize the role that Official Plans play in directing where intensification should occur. The Tribunal agrees. The Town OP has directed where intensification in the Town should be directed, and the Tribunal was not presented with compelling evidence to warrant expanding the intensification area through a site specific amendment to the Town OP.

77Communities within municipalities evolve over time and the challenge can be finding the right balance to meet current needs and future growth while maintaining compatibility with the existing context. As set out in City Front Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City), CanLII 94077 (ON LPAT), October 3, 2019 (per D. Lanthier) one must consider the provincial policies that prioritize intensification in consideration of height, mass, scale etc. In balancing these priorities, the Tribunal finds that the proposal represents overdevelopment and is too dense for the subject property. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the evidence supports intensification on the subject property, but to a lesser extent than that proposed. The adverse impacts on the existing neighbourhood character cannot be justified by any of the benefits which may be realized from the addition of 5 additional residential units to the 7 already permitted pursuant to the Town ZBL.

78After reviewing the relevant policies of the County OP and Town OP and hearing the evidence from the witnesses, the Tribunal finds that the proposal fails to strike an appropriate balance between intensification and compatible, context-sensitive built form. Although many policies do encourage intensification, these policies must be considered alongside other relevant policies, including those that aim to preserve neighbourhood character. The proposed level of intensification will result in reduced rear yard setbacks and increased privacy and overlook impacts into many of the rear yards along York Street. The Appellants attempt to maximize, as opposed to optimize, the subject property results in overdevelopment which will adversely impact the stable residential neighbourhood. The Tribunal emphasizes that one cannot prioritize maximizing development while ignoring competing policies.

79The evidence shows that some increase in density could be accommodated on the subject property without harming the existing stable neighbourhood character, however, the amount proposed by the Appellants is too excessive and goes beyond what can be appropriately supported.

SUMMARY

80With respect to heritage considerations, the Tribunal finds that heritage protection measures should be applied in a predictable manner to promote transparency and to avoid prejudice. The mere identification of potential HCDs, or areas a municipality is considering for a HCD, should not constrain development in the absence of an established HCD. When no municipal by-law has been passed pursuant to s. 40.1 of the Heritage Act, it is not appropriate to restrict development based solely on a municipality’s preliminary assessment of an area’s potential heritage value.

81The Tribunal found there was no evidence to conclude that consideration of the Applications at this time would be premature due to the ongoing heritage process. Delaying a decision would prejudice the Appellants who would be left waiting while the Town completes its heritage process. The Tribunal noted that under s. 40.1 of the Heritage Act a by-law passed by a municipality restricting development lasts up to one year. This suggests to the Tribunal that heritage-related delays are meant to be temporary, not indefinite. The Tribunal concluded that it would be unfair to postpone a decision on the OPA and ZBA indefinitely while heritage matters are being worked through by the Town.

82With respect to planning matters, the Tribunal recognizes that the approval of the OPA and ZBA would establish land use permissions and confer development rights for the subject property. However, the Tribunal notes that additional approvals, including site plan approval, would be required before the development could proceed. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal finds that the fundamental structure of the proposal conflicts with the intent of the policies set out in the Town OP. Such deficiencies cannot be adequately addressed through detailed site design or other refinements at the site plan approval stage.

83Overall, the Tribunal did not find that the evidence of the Appellants’ experts demonstrated that the proposal on the subject property meets the intent of the policies set out in the County OP and Town OP. The policy framework currently allows intensification on the subject property at a density of 25 units per net residential hectare, which the Town’s planning expert opined is an appropriate level of intensification. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal agrees and finds that the level of density proposed by the Appellants would result in overdevelopment. As presented, the development proposed would result in unacceptable negative impacts, including privacy and overlook, to the surrounding properties.

84For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA which would facilitate the proposal do not meet the requisite planning tests. While some level of intensification is warranted on the subject property, the Appellants’ proposal does not conform to the County OP, nor does it align with the general intent and purpose of the Town OP.

ORDER

85THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are dismissed and the requested amendments to the Official Plan for the Town of Orangeville and Zoning By-law No. 22090 as amended are refused.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY

VICE-CHAIR

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.