County of Brant Council supported a staff recommendation to amend a comprehensive zoning by-law for vacant land at 139 Court Dr. in Paris during its Council meeting on Tuesday, October 8, 2024.
In 2014, under previous zoning by-laws and the current Official Plan, past owners of the land were given permission to build a 12-storey building with a maximum of 104 units within the Simply Grand 2 subdivision.
Nearly a decade later, in December 2023, Losani Homes, who now owns the lands, received site plan approval for the first of two phases, an eight-storey building (known as building A) with 104 one and two bedroom units and 185 parking spaces.
Now, the request to modify the existing residential high-density, site specific zone provisions, will allow Losani to facilitate further intensification of the lands for a second building.
While building B will still be eight-stories, Losani asked that its application be reviewed under the new draft approved Official Plan, allowing them to effectively remove the maximum number of units.
“This second phase includes 153 units, and it contains a mix of one and two bedroom units. For the second building, there are 272 parking spaces proposed and exceeds the requirements of the zoning by-law,” said Emily Elliot, an MHBC Planning agent representing Losani Homes. “…Together, with the site plan approval on the northern portion of the building [building A], there will be a significant contribution to the range of housing types in this community through the provision of additional apartment units, and this form of housing does represent a more attainable form of market based housing.”
Dan Namisniak, acting Director of Development Planning for the County, said that because the amendment application conforms to the draft-approved Official Plan’s policies, Council would be allowed to approve it as it falls inline with what they’ve already endorsed.
“The Planning Act does allow for a by-law to be passed by council based on a draft approved Official Plan, and so council is permitted to pass or make a decision,” he said. “It’s important to note that the decision or the by-law would not come into effect until the new official plan comes into effect.”
Later, the councillors had an opportunity to ask Elliot questions about the proposed buildings.
“With the one bedroom, two bedroom units, 100 per cent we need those in our community, but you continue to use the word ‘attainable,’ but ‘attainable’ does not mean affordable,” said Councillor John Pierce. “I know that affordable is at the different end of the spectrum, but ‘attainable’ simply means that there are units available. Has there been any discussion, if at all, if these are going to be for rent or for sale?”
Afterwards, Councillor John Bell asked Elliott if she knew what the proposed price point for the units would be and if there was a specific timeline for either building to be completed.
Answering the questions with the information available to her at the time, Elliot said that all of that information would be determined based on a number of factors.
“In terms of the price point and that also hasn’t been determined at this point in time, it’s really subjective to a number of factors, including market conditions,” she said. “In terms of the word ‘attainable,’ it doesn’t indicate or promise that this will be affordable housing or subsidized housing in any way but it does reflect that this will be a lower price point when compared to other homes offered in the community. Compared to single detached dwellings, apartments are typically at a lower price point.”
She also added that as far as timeline goes, it was all subject to approval of the site plan and conditions moving forward.
During the public hearing a short while later, several residents had the opportunity to voice their concerns.
Pavinder Tut and Achal Sharm, who live directly adjacent to what will be building A, spoke about privacy issues, the lack of green space and the impact to the community’s character, as well as infrastructure strains and property values, and misleading information.
They said that prior to purchasing their property, they inquired with the builder about the intended development at 139 Court Dr. and were assured that any future development would align with the existing character of the neighbourhood such as single-family homes or townhouses similar to their own.
“Residents are losing sleep over what’s going to come next door and in our yards, we’re contemplating moving,” said Tut. “The implications are heavy, they’re disastrous if this goes through. We hope that you hear the voices today and vote against what’s being proposed. Additionally, we hope you support our request to appeal what’s already approved as you are actually the only ones that can do this for us due to the changes in legislature. You are our collective voices.”
Two other residents were also present to speak, echoing Tut and Sharm’s concerns, but also addressing traffic and safety, as well as the lack of available schooling as the local school board has already stated that any new residents will have to be bussed out of the community due current overcrowding.
Vishesh Thanki, a resident of the surrounding neighbourhood said that while himself and other community members weren’t against growth, above all, they wanted transparency.
“Our community isn’t against growth. I personally grew up in various big cities and I love high density because of everything that it brings,” he said. “While canvassing, everybody that I spoke to wanted this community to grow, nobody was against the growth of this community. However, everybody shared a similar vision, that growth should be transparent, sustainable and well managed.”
After hearing from their constituents, councillors had the opportunity to discuss their views on the project.
Lukas Oakley, Ward 2 Councillor, said he would be voting in favour.
“I think it’s pretty clear through our Official Plan process and all the consultation we did with that process, the housing crisis that we see around us is an issue and we need these types of units. There’s been a lot of talk about affordable versus attainable,” he said. “Affordability is not binary, it’s on the spectrum. …However, every single one of these units will be more affordable than what is currently available in the subdivision. This is a win. This is an improvement. Rome was not built in a day, and we do have to start building units that are more accessible and more attainable.”
Sharing similar sentiments, Councillor Jennifer Kyle said that while she had concerns regarding school capacity issues, she reminded everyone in the room that the County is mandated to grow.
“This week is Ontario Agriculture Week, so I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that we have been mandated to grow. We are in a housing deficit, and we need a mixture of housing and we need to control the sprawl out into our productive farmland,” she said. “These types of buildings that go up rather than out, are what we need to start considering as part of our growth within our urban areas, like Paris and down the road, in St. George’s and other areas. We have to stop sprawling out so we can continue to feed the community.”
Councillor Christine Garneau commended the community for coming and speaking their concerns, but said that if they turned down the application, not only would they be contradicting themselves and staff, but that they would also be risking the developer going to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Bell said that while he approved of phase 1, or building A, as it meets the requirements of both the current and the draft-approved Official Plan, he wouldn’t support the recommendation for the second building.
“I think we need to step back and understand the implications to our residents, we have an obligation, not only to the community at large, but to our ward residents,” he said. “…We do need to understand the feelings and expectations of existing residents when we make decisions like this which will severely impact them.”
Councillors Pierce and Steve Howes said they too were uncomfortable supporting the recommendation.
“We have been taught that as part of planning, applications are based on the approved [Official] Plan at the time,” said Pierce. “With the approved plan today, this does not conform, period.”
Speaking to the draft-approved Official Plan’s minimum target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare, Howes said that trying to fit more into the space could be too much for the land.
“I am trying to find some compromise in this and where I find it is in the original proposal. Even if we’re looking through the lens of our new Official Plan, the established minimum target is 50 residents and jobs per hectare,” he said. “The original proposal has 104 dwellings so maybe 200 people? That, to me, is growing up and not out, and I think it is achieving increased density. Looking at this proposal I think it’s too much for this piece of land.”
Before heading into the recorded vote, Mayor Bailey took the time to express how he felt about the proposal and its process, saying that he would not be supporting it.
“The people that came tonight are not against development and they’re not against apartment buildings but they want to see them first so they have the option to live in the shadow of one. To me, I think we’re doing this a bit ass backwards,” he said. “…I think the process was flawed. I think these people lost their money and their spirit, to live in the County of Brant, and that’s no one’s fault, but it happened.”
The recommendation was then passed on a recorded vote of 5 to 4, with Councillors Garneau, Brian Coleman, Oakley, Kyle, and John MacAlpine in favour, while Councillors Pierce, Bell, Howes and Mayor Bailey voted against it. Councillors Robert Chambers and David Miller were not present for the vote.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
