Melrose Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town), 2021 CanLII 112401

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200584

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: Melrose Investments Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Property Address/Description: Part 1, Lot 33, Concession 3

Municipality: Town of Oakville

OLT Case No.: PL200584

OLT File No.: PL200584

OLT Case Name: Melrose Investments Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

Heard: September 23-24, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Melrose Investments Inc.

Russell Cheeseman

Town of Oakville

Dennis Perlin

Regional Municipality of Halton

Jing Bo Yu

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act¹ ("Act") with respect to the failure of the Town of Oakville ("Town") to make a decision on a site plan application filed by Melrose Investments Inc. ("Appellant").

2The Appellant proposes to develop three single storey buildings for light industrial use on the property, which is approximately 6.3 hectares in size and legally described as Part 1, Lot 33, Concession 3 of Plan 20R-14971 ("subject property"). The subject property is located south of the Queen Elizabeth Way ("QEW") between Burloak Drive and Bronte Road and is Phase 2 of a larger development, referred to as Melrose Business Park. Phase 1 of the development, located just north of the subject property, contains three buildings similar to those proposed.

3The north side of the subject property abuts the South Service Road. To the south are Canadian National and Government of Ontario rail lines. To the east is McPherson Road and to the west is a RioCan Power Centre (big box retail complex) at the corner of Wyecroft Road and Burloak Drive.

4Wyecroft Road is not a through road and currently dead-ends at the boundary between the RioCan Power Centre and the subject property. However, it is planned to extend through the subject property across Bronte Creek to the east, eventually connecting to Bronte Road ("Wyecroft Extension"). The proposed development is to be located to the west side of McPherson Road fronting onto what is to be the future Wyecroft Extension.

5On July 8, 2021, the Tribunal conducted a partial settlement hearing and case management conference, at which time, the Regional Municipality of Halton ("Region") was granted party status and an Interim Order was issued approving an Interim Site Plan for Phase 2 of the Melrose Business Park, along with a related list of conditions of Site Plan Approval that had already been agreed to by the parties.

6The Tribunal scheduled this hearing to determine whether a number of other conditions sought by both the Town and the Region, to which the Appellant objects, should be conditions of Site Plan Approval. The following witnesses were qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in their respective fields of expertise on these matters: for the Appellant - Paul Lowes, land use planning; and Kenneth Chan, transportation engineering and planning and for the Region - Bernie Steiger, land use planning; and Matt Krusto, transportation planning.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

7The Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached and there were no contested conditions remaining between the Appellant and the Town. As a result, slight alterations were made to the Interim Site Plan for Phase 2 of the Melrose Business Park², which the Tribunal previously approved on an interim basis in accordance with uncontested land use planning evidence provided by Paul Lowes³.

8As such, all parties requested approval of an updated Interim Site Plan⁴ (Exhibit 2, Tab 8) and in this regard, the Tribunal again heard and accepted uncontested land use planning evidence from Mr. Lowes, who testified that the changes were minor in nature, relating only to elevations and canopy coverage. He recommended approval of the updated Interim Site Plan which, in his opinion, represents good planning in the public interest.

9Finally, the Appellant and the Region advised that an agreement had been reached on all but three conditions relating to the Wyecroft Extension:

5 iii. All lands that are part of the subject property and have been identified as required for the future extension of Wyecroft Road (Regional Road 45), as identified in the Wyecroft Road Detail Design Project (Bronte Road westerly), shall be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Halton for the purpose of road right-of-way widening and future road improvements. The Wyecroft Road Project Manager must be consulted throughout the proposed development process. The Project Manager is John Williamson, (905) 825-6000, ext. 7904 or John.Williamson@halton.ca

All lands to be dedicated to Halton Region shall be dedicated with clear title (free and clear of encumbrances) and a Certificate of title shall be provided, in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services or their designate.

5 v. A revised Transportation Impact Study (TIS) must be completed by a qualified Transportation consultant for the proposed development. The study must be completed as per Halton's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The final study, its assumptions & recommendations must be to the satisfaction of Transportation Planning and approved by Halton Region and shall address the comments provided under this Section.

5 vi. That the Interim Site Plan be revised to remove the proposed interim driveway shown on the plan, to the satisfaction of the Region of Halton.

ISSUE

10The issue is whether the Region has the authority to require the Appellant to provide the lands for the Wyecroft Extension, at no cost, as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Central to the dispute are differing interpretations of s. 41(8) and (9) of the Act:

41 (8) Where area is in upper-tier municipality

If an area designated under subsection (2) is within an upper-tier municipality, plans and drawings in respect of any development proposed to be undertaken in the area shall not be approved until the upper-tier municipality has been advised of the proposed development and afforded a reasonable opportunity to require the owner of the land to,

(a) provide to the satisfaction of and at no expense to the upper-tier municipality any or all of the following:

(i) subject to subsection (9), widenings of highways that are under the jurisdiction of the upper-tier municipality and that abut on the land,

(ii) subject to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, where the land abuts a highway under the jurisdiction of the upper-tier municipality, facilities to provide access to and from the land such as access ramps and curbings and traffic direction signs,

41 (9) Widening must be described in official plan

An owner may not be required to provide a highway widening under paragraph 1 of clause (7) (a) or under paragraph 1 of clause (8) (a) unless the highway to be widened is shown on or described in an official plan as a highway to be widened and the extent of the proposed widening is likewise shown or described.

The Appellant's Position

11The Appellant requests approval of the updated Interim Site Plan, subject only to the conditions agreed upon by the parties. The Appellant's position is that the three impugned conditions should be deleted on the basis that the Region lacks the statutory authority to impose same.

12The Appellant does not dispute the Wyecroft Extension is an important project for the Province and the Regional transportation network, nor does it dispute the chosen alignment/location of same. It conceded that the entirety of the lands sought will ultimately be transferred to the Region. What the Appellant takes issue with is the requirement, as a condition of Site Plan Approval, to provide the lands for the Wyecroft Extension to the Region at no cost.

13It was submitted that s. 41(8) only allows an upper tier municipality to require land at no cost for widenings of highways. As the Act does not define the term widening, the Tribunal was urged to use its plain, ordinary meaning, "to make or become wide/wider, broaden". It was argued in this instance, there is nothing to broaden/make wider, because Wyecroft Road does not currently exist on the subject lands and that what the Region is seeking is a dedication of land for the construction of a completely new section of highway.

14In contrast to s. 41(8), which only references highway widenings, the Tribunal's attention was drawn to s. 51(25) b) and c), allowing an approval authority to impose, as a condition of plan of subdivision approval, dedication of lands considered necessary to widen existing highways as well as to create highways and pathways.

51 (25) The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision, including a requirement,

b) that such highways, including pedestrian pathways, bicycle pathways and public transit rights of way, be dedicated as the approval authority considers necessary;

c) when the proposed subdivision abuts on an existing highway, that sufficient land, other than land occupied by buildings or structures, be dedicated to provide for the widening of the highway to such widths as the approval authority considers necessary.

It was submitted that a comparative analysis of these sections suggests the Legislature did not intend to provide approval authorities with the power to require the dedication of land for the creation of highways through the Site Plan process.

15In support of its position, the Appellant referred to a number of cases, including 588227 Ontario Ltd. v. Guelph (City)⁵ which, inter alia, addressed the question of whether s. 41 of the Act allowed the City to require, as a condition of Site Plan Approval, land for a pedestrian walkway across the subject site. Member Krushelnicki found that a conveyance or easement was required, noting:

Site planning is a means of organizing the site so that proper use can be made of it. Access to the buildings and uses is one of the things that may be properly guaranteed through the site plan. It is not another means of gaining an unrestricted public thoroughfare across the site. The appropriate mechanism for this would be a conveyance or easement either voluntarily or under the authority of the Expropriation Act.

16Member Krushelnicki also quoted the decision of High Meadow Ltd. v. City of Cambridge⁶, wherein the Board noted that although a requirement for the provision of vehicular access across a site made good sense from a planning and traffic perspective, issues of jurisdiction and property rights nevertheless took a superior position.

17While the Town's Official Plan ("TOP") shows Wyecroft Road extending through the subject property as a proposed road and describes a 40 meter ("m") right-of-way ("ROW") for Wyecroft Road from Burloak Drive to Bronte Road, it is not shown or described in the Region's Official Plan ("ROP"). As it is the Region, rather than the Town, seeking the land for the Wyecroft Extension, the Appellant contends it must be in the ROP and because it is not, the exception in s. 41(9) should apply.

18Finally, as the portion of Wyecroft Road which dead-ends at the subject property is currently owned by the Town, the Appellant argued it is not a Regional Road under the jurisdiction of the upper tier municipality for the purposes of s. 41(8).

19Based on all the foregoing, it was submitted there is no authority in s. 41 for the Region to require the Appellant to give up lands to facilitate the Wyecroft Extension for free as a condition of Site Plan Approval and that condition 5 iii. amounts to "expropriation without compensation".

20With respect to conditions 5 v. and vi., relating to transportation concerns and more specifically, access points and the temporary road/private driveway on the subject site, the Appellant argues these, too, should be deleted from the conditions of Site Plan Approval, as they prematurely seek to regulate the use of what is currently a private driveway on lands wholly owned by the Appellant. It was submitted that, until such time as the Region owns the land in question and the Wyecroft Extension is constructed, the Region has no authority to impose such conditions.

The Region's Position

21The Region requests the Tribunal approve the updated Interim Site Plan, subject to the conditions agreed upon between the parties as well as the three conditions at issue.

22It is not disputed that Wyecroft Road currently dead-ends and does not physically extend across the subject property; that the dead-end portion is currently owned by the Town, as opposed to the Region; and the Wyecroft Extension is not shown or described in the ROP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is the Region's position that it is appropriate, pursuant to s. 41(8) of the Act, to include conditions 5 iii., v., and vi. as conditions of Site Plan Approval.

23Despite a lack of physical existence on the subject property, it was submitted the Wyecroft Extension has existed there in policy for many years, because it is described in the TOP and a number of other planning documents, including but not limited to: the Region's Transportation Master Plan ("TMP") and an environmental assessment completed in 2006 ("2006 EA"), which determined with certainty the appropriate alignment thereof, all drafted in accordance with Provincial policy and direction in terms of planning and transportation.

24With respect to the dead-end portion of Wyecroft Road, counsel for the Region indicated that there have been bureaucratic delays, but title transfer is imminent. In any event, he noted s. 41(8) does not use the word ownership but rather jurisdiction and submitted, for all intents and purposes, the Region has jurisdiction by virtue of Halton Region By-law No. 43-19 s. 2, which states:

...that portion of Wyecroft Road (Regional Road 45) from Burloak Drive (Regional Road 21) to Bronte Road (Regional Road 25), in the Town of Oakville, be transferred to and under the jurisdiction and control of The Regional Municipality of Halton.

25It was argued that the exception in s. 41(9) is inapplicable even though the Wyecroft Extension is not shown or described in the ROP because the wording in s. 41(9) only requires depiction/description in an OP and the Wyecroft Extension is described in the TOP.

26Counsel for the Region noted, with reference to s. 1.1 and 2 of the Act, that planning is an ongoing exercise not performed in isolation but rather, through co-ordination at various levels of government in order to achieve comprehensive goals serving a broad range of interests. The Tribunal's attention was also drawn to s. 8(1) of the Municipal Act⁷, which states:

the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality's ability to respond to municipal issues.

as well as s. 64(1) of the Legislation Act⁸:

An Act shall be interpreted as being remedial and shall be given such fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

27Counsel for the Region was unable to present cases in support of the argument that the construction of a new portion of road should be interpreted as a widening for the purposes of s. 41(8) and he acknowledged that acceptance of this argument would establish a new direction with respect to what the Act allows under s. 41. Nevertheless, it was submitted that a strict interpretation would frustrate Regional and Provincial transportation and planning goals. The Tribunal was presented with a number of cases considering conditions of Site Plan Approval where flexible interpretations of s. 41 were endorsed to give effect to greater planning goals, including:

28Quinmar Investments v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)⁹, where despite not being visible on a map in the Town's OP, a road widening was found to be sufficiently described in other parts of the OP as required by s. 41(9). Sharpe, J., noted the Applicants sought to hold the drafters of the OP to an inappropriate and unrealistic standard of precision inconsistent with the nature and purpose of the Act and went on to say the question is whether the law provides an intelligible standard of sufficient certainty to give fair notice to the property owner.

29Similarly, in Bohn v. Town of Oakville¹⁰, the Board found bureaucratic delay was to blame for stalled approval of an amendment to the Town's OP describing a road widening. A condition requiring conveyance of the land for the widening was approved by the Board on the basis that the intentions of the municipality were known in light of the description in the proposed amendment and the requirement for conformity with the approved Regional Official Plan, which also included a description of the road widening.

30Precision of draftsmanship was again discussed in Burger King Restaurants of Canada Inc. v. Markham (Town)¹¹. In that case, a condition of Site Plan Approval under s. 41(7) required the Applicant to reimburse an abutting landowner for a portion of costs related to a recently constructed road which would provide access to the Burger King development site. Although reimbursements are not discussed in the section, the Board endorsed a liberal interpretation and found the condition was appropriate, as the purpose of same which ultimately addressed access, fell within the pith and substance of the operative section.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

31Mr. Lowes opined the condition requiring the Appellant to dedicate lands at no cost to facilitate the Wyecroft Extension is not supported by the wording in s. 41(8). In his view, the fact that there is no road which physically exists on the Appellant's lands and the distinctly different powers provided to a municipality in s. 41(8) versus 51(25) means there is no authority for the Region to acquire these lands through the Site Plan Approval process. He also opined that the portion of Wyecroft Road which abuts the subject site is not under the jurisdiction of the Region for the purposes of s. 41(8) because it is still owned by the Town.

32Mr. Lowes reviewed the ROP, and in particular: Map 1 (Regional Structure); Map 3 (Functional Plan of Major Transportation Facilities); and Map 4 (Right-of-Way Requirements of Arterial Roads), noting Wyecroft Road is not depicted as extending through the subject site and similarly, there is no ROW shown or described. While he acknowledged Schedule C of the TOP shows a "proposed road" connecting Burloak Drive and Bronte Road and there is a listed 40 "m" ROW requirement for Wyecroft Road from Burloak Drive to Bronte Drive, he nevertheless opined the lack of depiction/description of the Wyecroft Extension in the ROP brings into play the exception in s. 41(9).

33In Mr. Lowes' view, even if the Tribunal considers the dead-end portion of Wyecroft Road to be under the jurisdiction of the Region for the purposes of s. 41(8) and the depiction/description of the Wyecroft Extension in the TOP sufficient to render s. 41(9) inapplicable, the condition requiring the Appellant to give the lands to the Region at no cost is still not supported by the wording in s. 41(8), because it relates to a completely new portion of road and not a road widening.

34He testified the Appellant has appropriately protected the requisite 40 m ROW to accommodate future Wyecroft Extension in accordance with s. 8.5.1 of the TOP¹² and the temporary driveway/road which currently exists on the property is in the exact alignment set out 2006 EA. He opined there is nothing on the site precluding the construction of the Wyecroft Extension following the eventual transfer to the Region of the lands at issue.

35Although Mr. Lowes acknowledged the importance of the Wyecroft Extension to the Region's transportation network, he recommended that the development should be approved without the impugned conditions. He further opined, with reference to s. 24 of the Act, the conditions of site plan approval for off-site works unrelated to and/or not required for the proposed development are not appropriate and should be deleted.

36The Region's land use planning witness, Mr. Stieger, opined the proposed conditions are appropriate and the Appellant should be required to contribute toward the impact the development generates. In his view, the development will benefit from the Wyecroft Extension because it will have frontage and exposure on a through road.

37Although not shown/depicted in the ROP, Mr. Steiger opined that the certainty of alignment provided by the 2006 EA, the pending transfer of ownership of the dead-end portion of Wyecroft Road to the Region and the description of the Wyecroft Extension in the TOP render condition 5 iii. reasonable and appropriate. In his view, the Region is simply stepping into the role of the Township and requesting land to facilitate the planned extension in light of the pending transfer of ownership of the dead-end portion of Wyecroft Road.

38Mr. Steiger reviewed ROP policies which speak to broader transportation objectives, including the development of a system which is safe, convenient, affordable and supportive of public transit and active transportation. He highlighted the strategic importance of the Wyecroft Extension specifically, noting it is part of the Province's Regional Transportation Plan 2041 and funding for the project has already been provided by the Province. The project, once completed, will allow connections between Burlington and Oakville and transit stops along the way, facilitating goals in the Region's TMP.

39Mr. Steiger described the matter before the Tribunal as unique, insofar as the Wyecroft Extension is planned to bisect the Appellant's property, whereas the more usual scenario involves property fronting onto an already established road network. He acknowledged s. 41(8) speaks to the more usual scenario and the wording thereof implies the road to be widened already exists. When asked, under cross examination, about the differing language and powers in s. 41(8) and s. 51(25), Mr. Steiger opined the drafters of the Act had likely not considered the current and unique scenario before the Tribunal when choosing wording for s. 41(8).

40He conceded that, should the Appellant not proceed with the proposed development, the Region would have to obtain the land for the Wyecroft Extension by alternate means, such as an agreement to purchase or expropriation. He further conceded the proposed development can be constructed, serviced and fully function with the temporary road/private driveway shown on the updated Interim Site Plan. In other words, the Wyecroft Extension is not necessary for the development proposed.

TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE

41Messrs. Chan and Krusto provided evidence in relation to contested conditions v. and vi., which address transportation issues. Mr. Chan explained that condition v. requires an updated Transportation Impact Study ("TIS") to address comments from the Region mainly in relation to traffic impacts generated by the development and three proposed accesses. He testified that, from a traffic perspective, the proposed development is capable of functioning without the Wyecroft Extension. He also testified that an updated TIS was conducted in September 2021 which showed that the traffic generated by the proposed development is acceptable. He opined the temporary road/driveway and access points in the locations proposed will not result in negative impacts to the existing or planned road network and overall, constitute good transportation planning.

42For more context, Mr. Chan provided an overview of Halton Region By-law No 32-17 ("Access By-Law") and reviewed the proposed accesses for the site - one for passenger vehicles leading to employee/visitor parking; one for tractor-trailers leading to loading docks; and a third leading to loading areas meant for mid-sized trucks. He opined that these separate accesses are necessary for the safe and efficient circulation of traffic on the site and, in accordance with the purpose of the Access By-law, will allow safe access and a high level of service for through traffic once the Wyecroft Extension is constructed. He predicted that a reduction in the number of accesses (as envisioned by the Region), would result in an unsafe intermingling of smaller and larger vehicles on the site.

43Mr. Krusto is the Supervisor of Transportation Development Review for the Region. He testified that Regional goals and objectives in relation to access management are based on the Access Management Guidelines, 2015 ("Guidelines") and the Access By-law. He recommended the Tribunal maintain conditions v. and vi. as conditions of Site Plan Approval and explained that the accesses discussed by Mr. Chan and proposed by the Appellant do not conform to the recommended spacing between accesses, as set out in the Guidelines.

44He explained the Region's goal of providing a framework for access control which maintains a high level of service for through-traffic and provides reasonable access to abutting properties while achieving goals such as reducing collisions and energy consumption. He testified that the purpose of the spacing recommendations in the Guidelines is to ensure entrances onto Regional Roads are far enough apart so as not to interfere with the movement of through traffic. In his opinion, the proposed development is capable of adequately functioning with the reduced number of accesses envisioned by the Region in accordance with the Guidelines and should be designed accordingly.

45On cross examination, Mr. Krusto acknowledged that there is currently a temporary driveway/private road owned by the Appellant and no Regional Road on the subject property. He conceded that the Access By-law is not applicable because the Region does not currently own the road and the Region has no authority to impose conditions in relation to access points until after the land for the Wyecroft Extension is acquired. He testified that, in spite of the foregoing, the Region is attempting to plan proactively to regulate accesses along the future Wyecroft Extension.

46He further conceded that there was no evidence to show the analysis and recommendations of Mr. Chan in relation to traffic impacts and the proposed accesses were incorrect or would not result in safe access and a high level of service for through traffic.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

47The Tribunal finds the operative word in s. 41(8) for the purposes of this analysis is 'widening' and accepts the Appellant's assertion that the Wyecroft Extension does not constitute a highway widening, but rather the creation of an entirely new portion of road.

48The cases relied upon by the Region in support of a flexible and liberal interpretation also acknowledge the need for fairness¹³ and recognize there may be limits in cases involving the power to take land¹⁴. The Tribunal is of the view that it would be unfair to interpret s. 41(8) of the Act as allowing the Region to take land from the Appellant to create a new portion of road without providing fair compensation, especially given the rather narrow wording in s. 41(8) as compared to s. 51(25). The Tribunal did not accept Mr. Steiger's assertion that the drafters of the Act simply failed to contemplate the present situation and is of the view that these sections were deliberately drafted to provide approval authorities with different powers at different stages of the planning process.

49Site Planning is meant to ensure development is designed to be functional and compatible with the surrounding area, balancing the needs of the development and its users with the needs of neighbouring property owners and the general public. With respect to the concepts of fairness and balance, although it is clear the Wyecroft Extension is an important part of the Regional transportation network and has been planned for some time, it is also clear that the proposed development does not require the Wyecroft Extension to function. Moreover, while it may result in some measure of benefit to the Appellant as opined by Mr. Steiger, it is clear on the balance of his evidence and the arguments of the Region, that this project is really intended to benefit the broader public, in general. Based on the foregoing, the Appellant should not bear the entirety of the costs of the land dedication associated with the Wyecroft Extension.

50The Tribunal was persuaded by Member Krushelnicki's finding in 588227 Ontario Ltd. v. Guelph (City) (supra) that site planning is not a means of gaining an unrestricted public thoroughfare across a site. The Region has, at its disposal, other means by which it may obtain the required lands, including expropriation. Further, as in High Meadow Ltd. (supra), while the Wyecroft Extension may make good sense from a planning and traffic perspective, in this instance the Tribunal finds acceptance of the Region's interpretation of s. 41(8) would unfairly impact the Appellant's property rights and effectively permit, as argued by the Appellant, expropriation without compensation.

51In the event the Tribunal erred in the foregoing findings, it nevertheless agrees with the Appellant's assertion that, because the Region seeks the land under the authority of s. 41(8), it follows that the operative Official Plan for the purposes of s. 41(9) is the Region's. As such, even if the Wyecroft Extension constitutes a highway widening, the Tribunal finds the Appellant would be excepted from providing the lands for such a widening on the basis of s. 41(9), because despite the certainty of alignment of the Wyecroft Extension, which has been definitively known for some 15 years as a result of the 2006 EA, the ROP lacks a description/depiction thereof.

52With regard to the conditions relating to accesses and the temporary driveway, the Tribunal agrees that because the land is currently owned by the Appellant and there is no Regional Road in existence on the site, there is no authority for the Region to impose conditions 5 v. and vi. at this time. Based on the evidence of Mr. Lowes and Mr. Chan that the requisite amount of land has been appropriately protected in the exact alignment required by the 2006 EA and the temporary road/private driveway and proposed accesses constitute good transportation planning, the Tribunal is satisfied that the deletion of the impugned conditions and the development of the site as proposed will not in any way impede the Wyecroft Extension.

ORDER

53The Tribunal orders that:

a) the appeal is allowed and conditions 5 iii., v., and vi. are deleted from the conditions imposed on the approval of the draft plan;

b) the Interim Site Plan prepared by Baldassara Architects Inc. reissued for submission to the Tribunal on September 8, 2021, set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, is approved subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 2 to this Order; and

c) this Member is seized and may be spoken to by telephone conference call at a mutually convenient time, with respect to any matters relating to, or arising from, this Order.

"S. Braun"

S. BRAUN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, AS AMENDED.
2. 2Prepared by Baldassara Architects Inc., reissued for submission to the Tribunal on July 2, 2021.
3. 3An expert qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence, who testified that the interim form of the Site Plan before the Tribunal conformed to the Official Plans of the Town and the Region, as well as applicable portions of the Town of Oakville Zoning By-law and represented good planning in the public interest.
4. 4Prepared by Baldassara Architects Inc., issued for submission to the Tribunal on September 8, 2021 ("Updated Interim Site Plan").
5. 52001 Carswell Ont 5699, 42 O.M.B.R. 66.
6. 6[1999] 38 O.M.B.R 251 [O.M.B.]
7. 7S.O. 2001, C. 25
8. 8S.O. 2006, C. 21, Sched. F
9. 91998 CarswellOnt 2572,
10. 101989 CarswellOnt 3509, 23 O.M.B.R. 366
11. 112000 CarswellOnt 2501, 14. M.P.L.R. (3d), 265
12. 12Which lists a 40 m ROW width for Wyecroft Road from Burloak Drive to Bronte Road.
13. 13Burger King, supra.
14. 14Quinmar, supra.