A dispute over "unresolved issues" regarding a zoning bylaw amendment and plan of subdivision on a rural property near Dundas Street South has ended up in an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Power Play Equity Capital Inc. and Treasure Hill filed their application for the zoning bylaw amendment last August with a plan to build a mix of single detached homes and townhouses at 65 and 105 Ripplewood Road in the city's south end.
The amendment aims for a combination of residential zones and open space zones with site specific provisions for lot size and yard setbacks.
The "medium-density" subdivision of 752 units would include 278 lots designated for single detached homes.
The remaining units would be composed of five blocks of street townhouses and four blocks of "cluster development" condominium townhouses.
It would also include two park blocks, five open space blocks to provide "protection for natural heritage features," and five blocks for stormwater management.
It would be home to over 2,000 people and reach a population density of 62.2 people per hectare.
But city staff said the zoning application was premature because a draft plan of subdivision was still under review and "a number of issues" were outstanding, so council refused it.
Among a list of reasons why the developers believe the proposal "should have been approved" is the claim that it's consistent with provincial planning policy and meets several objectives of both the region's and city's official plans, including a minimum target density of 55 residents and jobs per hectare.
Senior planner Jacqueline Hanneman told council in January that a plan of subdivision should be reviewed in advance, "or at very least" alongside the zoning bylaw amendment application to ensure zoning is appropriate for the different lots, blocks and road network.
Hanneman said staff want to ensure the zoning locations are consistent with the final plan of subdivision.
"It doesn't really make sense, in my opinion, to approve zoning at this time," she said in January.
Coun. Scott Hamilton asked how the developer "put the cart before the horse" in this case and Hanneman explained this was the first application to come in under changes to the province's planning policy framework, which includes new timelines for approval and application.
Staff attempted to encourage the developers to apply for a draft plan of subdivision first after recognizing that finalizing one before the other could become an issue, she said.
The property contains two provincially significant wetlands with much of the property within the Grand River Conservation Authority's regulation limit.
Concern about impacts on nearby residential wells was raised by at least one resident at a public meeting on the proposal.
The developers say supporting comments about the protection of the natural heritage features indicate the buffers are appropriate to support the application.
"The most sensitive provincially significant features have been avoided and buffered through the design of the proposed development," reads a summary of the appeal.
A hearing date has not been set.
