County delays decision on sweeping new planning system after lengthy council debate

Casandra Turnbull

Managing Editor

County of Brant councillors have delayed a decision on one of the most significant overhauls of the municipality's planning system in decades, opting to take more time to review hundreds of pages of material before deciding whether to replace the County's existing zoning bylaw with a new Community Planning Permit System (CPPS).

The proposed system, which has been under development since late 2024 and builds on the County's Official Plan adopted in 2023, would fundamentally change how development applications are reviewed by combining zoning, minor variances and site plan approvals into a single application process. 

Planning manager Brandon Kortleve told council the proposal represents the culmination of years of work dating back to the County's Official Plan review.

Since the county started updating the Official Plan in 2019, which was approved in 2023, Kortleve said “We've had lots of input from council, residents, stakeholders, and the development community as well have been engaged in ongoing conservation about growth, managing that growth, about what land use looks like, heritage, conservation, protection, our downtown areas, all important things for the community.”

He went on, "What this bylaw does is tries to capture all those conversations in a new framework for the municipality. And what we're discussing tonight is the implementation of all those conversations." 

Kortleve noted the County's current planning framework includes outdated standards dating back to before amalgamation, creating inconsistencies as communities continue to grow. Staff also committed to returning to council within six months of implementation to review how the new system is working. 

Among the changes is consolidating the application process. Rather than requiring applicants to navigate separate processes for zoning amendments, minor variances and site plan control, the CPPS would merge those approvals into a single "one-window" system intended to simplify and speed up development approvals. 

Applications would be divided into three classes.

Class 1 applications would cover developments that comply with the bylaw.

Class 2 applications would involve relatively minor variations that could be reviewed and approved by planning staff.

Class 3 applications would deal with larger deviations or proposals attracting greater public interest and would continue to require council review and public engagement. 

The proposal also delegates more routine planning decisions to staff rather than requiring council approval for every application. According to the report, the intent is to allow planning professionals to deal with straightforward applications while council continues to consider more significant proposals. Public notification requirements would still apply for staff decisions, and council would continue receiving implementation reports beginning in January 2027. 

Perhaps the biggest philosophical change is how development would be evaluated.

Instead of relying primarily on traditional "as-of-right" zoning permissions, the CPPS would place greater emphasis on whether a proposal is appropriate for its location and consistent with the County's Official Plan and long-term growth objectives. The framework introduces "appropriate" and "discretionary" land uses, allowing planning staff and council to consider broader planning objectives when reviewing applications. 

The bylaw also updates development standards, expands permissions for additional residential units, modernizes parking requirements, refines environmental overlays and introduces more flexible development standards intended to better reflect neighbourhood character while supporting housing growth.  The proposal includes a new Facilities, Services and Matters (FSM) framework linking higher-density development to contributions toward infrastructure and community benefits. Rather than focusing solely on building height, the revised approach looks more broadly at increased residential density and seeks proportional contributions to help support growth-related infrastructure while maintaining housing viability. 

County staff emphasized the recommendation follows an extensive public consultation process that included the Engage Brant website, public open houses, stakeholder meetings, agency consultation and multiple reports to council and committees between August 2025 and July 2026. The final recommendation incorporates revisions based on public feedback, including changes to decision-making authority, public notification requirements, agricultural provisions, environmental protections, transition rules and development standards. 

Despite broad support for modernizing the planning process, several presenters at the Special Council Meeting on July 7 identified areas they believe still require changes.

Jay McGuffin, principal planner with Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, appeared on behalf of Cedar North Developments Inc., which owns lands on Grand River Street North across from McDonald's.

McGuffin said his client generally supports moving to a CPPS but argued changes to proposed zoning permissions differ from an Ontario Land Tribunal settlement approved in late 2025 involving their northeast Paris lands. The conflicting messaging and permissions could further delay Cedar North Development Inc’s rush to apply for phase 1 approval to begin construction on a new elementary school proposed within the development. 

Kristen Boughner, speaking for the Brantford Home Builders' Association, also supported the overall modernization effort but expressed concern with the proposed Facilities, Services and Matters fees.

"In our view this functions as an additional development charge at the time when residential construction industry continues to face unprecedented financial pressures," she said. 

Christine Garneau Bisaillon and John Bisaillon raised concerns the bylaw could create additional approvals for routine agricultural activities.

Using her family's Creek View Acres orchard as an example, she said pick-your-own operations would be treated as temporary on-farm activities requiring County approval, while farm tours, educational workshops and other rural activities could face additional oversight, she summarized.  She also questioned proposed natural heritage mapping and said she was concerned portions of her property would be rezoned, requiring farmers to seek municipal permission for activities they have traditionally undertaken. Kortleve responded that the Natural Heritage overlay largely restores protections that existed under the County's 2012 Official Plan but were not carried into the newest OP, describing the change as improving transparency through consolidation within the CPPS. 

Mary Jane Brown, a German School Road resident and agricultural land owner, as well as  long-time member of the Committee of Adjustment, urged council to consider delaying approval, noting many incoming councillors following this fall's municipal election will inherit the new planning framework.

She acknowledged attending public open houses but said relatively few residents participated and the document has changed significantly since those sessions. 

Councillors also sought clarification on how the transition would work.

Coun. Robert Chambers asked staff how existing applications and approvals would move into the new system.

Kortleve said developments that have already received approvals will retain them, while applications currently underway will transition through parallel processes where necessary. He estimated the transition would take about six months and said staff plan to launch an online submission portal, conduct public outreach and hold planning "pop-up" sessions across the county over the next several months. Ultimately he said staff are dedicated over the next few years to working closely with the public through the transition. 

Coun. Lukas Oakley questioned whether the proposed Facilities, Services and Matters framework could affect grant programs tied to reduced development charges. Kortleve replied staff are not aware of any interaction between the two. 

After some discussion, Coun. John Bell said the volume of material before council warranted additional review.

Noting councillors had received well over 1,700 pages of reports between the Community Planning Permit System and the downtown Paris zoning proposals considered during the same special meeting, Bell said council could spend hours asking questions.

Rather than attempting to resolve every issue during one meeting, he proposed submitting questions to staff and reconvening at a later date before making a final decision. Council supported deferring the recommendation.

However, the length of the delay prompted mixed reactions around the council table.

Coun. John Peirce stated the new planning framework is too important to rush given its long-term impact on growth and development across the municipality.

Coun. Steve Howes and Lukas Oakley argued the project has already undergone extensive public consultation and multiple revisions over many months and should be finalized by the current council rather than leaving the decision to the next term. No timeline was established for when council will reconsider the proposed Community Planning Permit System with the decision hindering on how many questions were submitted and how long it would take staff to appropriately respond.