Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 24, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200544 PL200645
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 1972909 Ontario Limited Subject: By-law No. 20-065 Municipality: City of Peterborough OLT Case No.: PL200544 OLT File No.: PL200544 OLT Case Name: 1972909 Ontario Ltd. v. Peterborough (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 1972909 Ontario Limited Applicant: Muskoka D&M Corp. Subject: Consent Property Address/Description: 689 Towerhill Road Municipality: City of Peterborough Municipal File No.: B07-20 OLT Case No.: PL200544 OLT File No.: PL200645
Heard: November 18, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 1972909 Ontario Limited (“Appellant”) | R. Taylor |
| Muskoka D&M Corp. (“Applicant”) | J. Ewart |
| City of Peterborough (“City”) | A Barber |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISIO DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON NOVEMBER 19, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matters before the Tribunal concern the consolidation of a site specific Zoning By-law Amendment appeal (“ZBA”) and a consent appeal to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility on the lands known municipally as 689 Towerhill Road (“Subject Lands”).
2Due to a defective public notice, the Tribunal had directed a new public notice be issued. During that time period, the parties were able to settle their issues, and the matter came before the Tribunal as a proposed settlement, with the Appellant withdrawing its appeal against the ZBA, and the parties unanimously recommending a revised consent condition.
3For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeal against the ZBA, and allowed the consent appeal in part and added a revised condition of consent to the Committee of Adjustment’s (“CA”) consent decision.
DECISION
4The Applicant had submitted an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a ZBA, and a consent application to the City for the Subject Lands.
5The City’s Planning Staff report notes that the Subject Lands represented an undeveloped “hole” that was surrounded by development: a water reservoir and telecommunication tower to the north, detached residential uses to the east and south and a church to the west.
6The Subject Lands were 9.87 hectares (“ha”) in area and it was proposed that 2.2 ha be developed with a 4 storey and 256 bed long term care facility on the lands to be severed (“Severed Lands”), and that the Retained Lands be developed in the future for residential uses.
7As the Subject Lands were designated Urban Fringe Control Area, the Applicant proposed to have them redesignated as “Residential”. The Applicant also proposed to have the Severed Lands rezoned from Rural Zone to R.1 on a site specific basis, and the Retained Lands rezoned to Development District limited to existing uses pending further applications.
8The City adopted the OPA, and approved the ZBA, and the CA authorized the consent application subject to a number of conditions.
9The Appellant appealed the ZBA and the consent.
10The Tribunal had consolidated the ZBA and consent appeals.
11At the Tribunal hearing, as a new public notice had been issued, the Tribunal canvassed for requests for either party or participant status. With no such requests, the Tribunal sought status updates from counsel based on the land use planning affidavit of Kent Randall (Exhibit 2) that had been forwarded to the Tribunal.
12The Tribunal was advised that the parties had settled their issues, entered into three separate agreements, and on that basis the Appellant was prepared to withdraw its appeal against the ZBA, and that the parties were seeking an amended consent condition to the November 4, 2020 CA decision found at Exhibit 3.
13As the parties had not provided the revised consent condition to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing, the Tribunal recessed the hearing. After the recess the parties advised the Tribunal that they had agreed upon and unanimously recommended the following consent condition which is found at Exhibit 6 and is quoted below:
That Paragraph (iii) of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Peterborough dated November 4, 2020 be deleted and replaced as follows:
That the Owner shall fulfill its obligations contained in the Agreement dated October 27, 2021 between itself and the City following severance.
14With this unanimous recommendation, the Tribunal received confirmation from counsel for the Appellant that it would withdraw its appeal against the ZBA, and all counsel recommended that the Tribunal allow the consent appeal in part and amend the consent conditions of approval as set out above.
15The Tribunal noted that the parties have been able to resolve their outstanding issues through a series of agreements as set out in the land use planning affidavit of Kent Randall (Exhibit 2). There, attached to the affidavit, are three agreements: the first being between the Applicant and Appellant dated November 5, 2021, the second being a Cost Sharing Agreement between the Applicant and the City dated October 27, 2021, and the third being a tripartite agreement among the Appellant, the Applicant, and the City executed on November 4, 2021.
16Based on these three agreements, and the proposed amendment to the CA’s conditions of approval, counsel for the Appellant withdrew the appeal against the ZBA.
17The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of the ZBA appeal, and having read the land use planning affidavit wherein Kent Randall opined that the consent: had appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“PA”), was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), conformed to A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), conformed to the City’s Official Plan, satisfied the consent criteria in s. 51(24) of the PA, represented good land use planning and was in the public interest, and having heard the submissions of counsel unanimously recommending the authorization of the consent with the revised consent condition, the Tribunal found that the consent application satisfied all the land use planning tests and criteria.
18Accordingly, the Tribunal allows the appeal in part and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the CA’s conditions with the amended consent condition (iii) as noted above.
19The Tribunal would congratulate counsel and the parties for their constructive steps to resolve this matter and thereby avoiding a lengthy and costly hearing,
20This is the Order of the Tribunal.
“Blair S. Taylor”
BLAIR S. TAYLOR 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.