County moves ahead with landmark planning overhaul

Casandra Turnbull

Managing Editor

After weeks of debate, public feedback and hundreds of pages of additional review, County of Brant council has approved a new Community Planning Permit System (CPPS), replacing the municipality's traditional planning framework with what staff describe as a simpler, more streamlined "one-window" development approval process.

The new system, which takes effect Aug. 22, consolidates zoning, site plan control and minor variance approvals into a single planning framework intended to simplify applications while maintaining council oversight on more significant proposals. The bylaw passed July 28 in an 11-1 vote, with Coun. Brian Coleman casting the lone opposing vote. The implementation date was pushed from its original timeline to allow for final preparations and transition planning. 

The approval follows council's decision earlier this month to defer the matter after councillors requested additional time to review more than 1,700 pages of reports and public submissions. While support for modernizing the planning process remained strong, much of the discussion since then centred on uncertainty surrounding the new framework and the County becoming one of the first municipalities in Ontario to fully implement a countywide CPPS. 

Planning manager Brandon Kortleve told council the objective has always been to simplify planning across the municipality.

"Help simplify planning in the County of Brant. That is why we're moving to one CPPS instead of two separate planning systems, which creates confusion and makes future updating difficult," he said.

Several residents, agricultural stakeholders, developers and businesses had urged council to consider implementing the new system only in urban areas first, leaving rural and agricultural lands under the existing zoning framework until more experience had been gained.

Kortleve said staff considered that approach but concluded a single framework would provide greater consistency.

"That doesn't mean that every area will be treated the same just as our zoning bylaw contains different standards for different communities, different land uses. The CPPS does exactly that as well."

He challenged council to consider the alternative.

"What plans are being solved by excluding areas from our CPPS? If specific policies or standards need refinement, we can do that."

Staff maintained the framework has already evolved significantly through public consultation and council feedback, noting additional refinements were made following the July 7 meeting to address agricultural provisions, transition rules, natural hazards, environmental protections and implementation details. An updated FAQ was also prepared in response to questions raised by councillors and the public. 

Addressing concerns from developers with projects already underway, Kortleve said existing approvals remain protected.

"With respect to existing developments in transition I would say staff are satisfied the existing transition provisions protect the existing approvals."

"Approved development can proceed. We've not approved any development rights that have been lost."

He added staff had consulted legal counsel and were satisfied the bylaw aligns with the County's Official Plan adopted in 2023 and complies with the Planning Act.

Kortleve also argued the new framework could benefit rural property owners.

"Rural areas often have fewer specific zoning provisions. They have fewer legacy developments. That makes them kind of well suited for this streamlined approval approach."

He added the CPPS provides more local flexibility while modernizing planning administration in both urban and rural areas.

Despite those assurances, uncertainty remained a recurring theme throughout the meeting.

Among the written submissions received before council were letters from the Brant County Federation of Agriculture, developers, businesses including Canadian Tire, Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and several residents. While many supported the concept of modernizing the planning process, several questioned whether the bylaw provides enough clarity around implementation, existing development rights and how the new approval process will function in practice. 

Canadian Tire's planning consultants, for example, expressed concern portions of the proposed bylaw could unintentionally render existing commercial development legally non-complying, potentially making future building additions and modest site improvements more difficult without additional approvals. The company asked the County to include stronger protections for existing developments while continuing to support long-term redevelopment objectives. 

The Brant County Federation of Agriculture also questioned applying one planning framework across the entire municipality, suggesting agricultural lands warrant additional safeguards. Staff responded that agricultural areas would continue operating under their own zoning permissions within the countywide framework and emphasized that Minimum Distance Separation requirements, agricultural impact assessments and council oversight for significant rural proposals remain unchanged. 

During council discussion, Coun. Robert Chambers acknowledged the learning curve the new system may create.

He cautioned there will be residents who are unfamiliar with the new requirements and suggested flexibility may be needed to help applicants navigate the transition.

Kortleve replied applicants who are uncomfortable with staff-level approvals always have the option of requesting council consideration.

Coun. John Bell said one of his longstanding frustrations has been developers repeatedly seeking zoning variances that ultimately increase the value of their projects without providing additional benefit to the municipality.

"One of my biggest frustrations as a councillor is developers come to this table and ask for multiple variances to our zoning bylaws. And that demand seems to just ratchet up every year. It is given for the most part and if don't give we seem to be taken to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And it comes to no direct benefit to the county. It clearly aids economic case for the developer. I think the CPPS helps by putting a framework around that."

Bell focused much of his discussion on the proposed Facilities, Services and Matters (FSM) framework, which would allow the County to negotiate community benefits when developments exceed baseline planning permissions.

He said when additional density creates greater economic value for developers, some of that benefit should also support municipal infrastructure.

Bell asked staff, "If we approve CPPS that means wee approve FSM. Are we saying that part of what we approve is directing what is the best strategy for FSM?"

Kortleve replied, "That is correct." However, Chambers questioned why the County was implementing the framework before finalizing its long-term strategy.

"Why are we implementing it before we have a consideration of the long-term strategy? Why don't we understand it first and know what it is going to be before implementing it?" Kortleve acknowledged those concerns.

"We've heard from council and public that is maybe not well understood and the intention behind this direction, this piece where that money is spent, is going to go back for public consultation."

Coun. Jennifer Kyle said she expects the new planning framework to continue evolving after implementation.

"This is the beginning and there will be lots of adjustments as the CPPS is implemented," she said, adding she intends to monitor the system closely to ensure necessary changes are made.

Recognizing many of the concerns raised during public consultation, council also directed staff to closely monitor the rollout of the new planning system and continue reporting back with opportunities for public feedback. Staff have committed to returning to council within three to six months, and again after one year, to evaluate how the system is working and recommend refinements where needed.