Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002250 (Formerly PL171210)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: ZBA/DPS for Claremont Dev. Corp. Phase 1 Residential
Reference Number: A9/90
Property Address: 5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Case No.: PL171210
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171210
OLT Case Name: Claremont Development Corporation v. Pickering (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: ZBA/DPS for Claremont Dev. Corp. Phase 1 Residential
Reference Number: A 17/90
Property Address: 5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002253
Legacy Case No.: PL171211
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171210
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Reference Number: 18T-90016
Property Address: 5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002254
Legacy Case No: PL171212
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Lead Case No: PL171210
OLT Case Name: Claremont Development Corporation v. Pickering (City)
Heard: August 23, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Claremont Development Corporation (“Applicant”) | M. Flowers/ A. Lusty |
| The Regional Municipality of Durham (“Region”) | R. Woon |
| The Corporation of the City of Pickering (“City”) | M. Joblin |
| The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) | S. Heuchert* |
| Andre Kern | Did not appear |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON AUGUST 23, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1In or about 1990, the Applicant had made a development application for the lands known municipally as 5113 Old Brock Road (“Subject Lands”) in the Hamlet of Claremont seeking to rezone the Subject Lands and have a draft plan of subdivision approved. No decision was made on the development proposal.
2In or about 2018 revised applications were submitted as revisions to what had been earlier filed. This led to a series of appeals, including the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”, the Tribunal’s predecessor), the Divisional Court, appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal refused, that focused inter alia on the Clergy Principle.
3The LPAT decision, upheld by the Divisional Court, was that the Clergy Principle applied and that the applicable municipal land use planning instruments were the Region of Durham Official Plan (June 5, 1991) and the Claremont Development Plan, 1991 (Edition 3).
4Additionally the Transitional Rules of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 O. Reg 311/06 provide that it did not apply to this development application.
5The matter was set down for a 14 day hearing on the merits to commence on August 22, 2022.
6In the lead up to the hearing, the Applicant, the Region, the City, the TRCA, and Mr. Andre all participated in private mediation that led to Minutes of Settlement found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2.
7One party, David Masters, did not participate in the mediation.
8However by letter dated July 27, 2022, counsel for Mr. Masters gave notice of his withdrawal as a party (Exhibit 1).
9Thus the matter came before the Tribunal as a settlement proposal.
10The Tribunal had before it the Applicant’s Document Book (Exhibit 2) which contained the land use planning joint affidavit of Don Given and Matthew Cory in support of the proposed settlement, and the Minutes of Settlement, and appended to the Minutes of Settlement were the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), the draft plan of subdivision (“Draft Plan”), and the draft conditions of draft plan approval (“Draft Plan Conditions”).
11The Tribunal heard the oral evidence of Matthew Cory, the submissions of counsel, and for the reasons set out below allowed the appeals in part.
DECISION
12The Subject Lands are located within the Hamlet of Claremont, are about 38 hectares in area and the existing land use is primarily agricultural.
13To the north of the Subject Lands is a wooded area, residential uses and a railway. To the south are commercial and residential uses. To the east is Brock Road and agricultural lands, and to the west are commercial and residential uses.
14The settlement proposal arising from the Minutes of Settlement would result in the development of 33.86 hectares of the Subject Lands within the Hamlet of Claremont consisting of 71 lots, four new roads, two stormwater management ponds, and a 1.70 hectare park.
15At the hearing, the letter of withdrawal from party status by counsel for David Masters was entered as Exhibit 1.
16Exhibit 2 contained the affidavit evidence of land use planners Don Given and Matthew Cory (Tab 1), and the Minutes of Settlement executed by the above noted parties (except David Masters) (Tab 2) and attached to the Minutes of Settlement with the revised draft ZBA, Draft Plan, and Draft Plan Conditions (Tab 2 Schedules A, B, and C).
17Entered as Exhibit 3 was an updated Participant Statement from John Hickman.
18The Tribunal heard the uncontroverted and uncontested expert land use planning evidence of Mr. Cory in which he confirmed that the settlement proposal as found in the Minutes of Settlement:
a. Had appropriate regard for all the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“PA”);
b. Was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”);
c. Conformed with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
d. That the Growth Plan did not apply because of the Transitional Rules in O. Reg 311/06;
e. Conformed to the Regional Official Plan (June 5, 1991);
f. Conformed to the Claremont Development Plan, 1991 (Edition 3);
g. That the Draft Plan satisfied all the criteria of s. 51(24) of the PA;
h. That the Draft Plan Conditions were reasonable and appropriate;
i. That the development represented good land use planning;
j. And that the development was in the public interest.
19The Tribunal heard the submissions of counsel for the parties and from the representative of the TRCA, all in support of the settlement proposal.
20The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Regional Council, and City Council as reflected in the Minutes of Settlement, considered the updated Participant Statement of John Hickman (Exhibit 3), and both the affidavit planning evidence and the oral evidence of Mr. Cory.
21The Tribunal found that the proposed development had been extensively studied, that the proposed development was within the Hamlet and would complete the Hamlet, would contribute to the vitality of the Hamlet and the additional growth would encourage the existing businesses in the Hamlet, all while not adversely affecting any natural heritage, ecologically or hydrologically sensitive features associated with the Oak Ridges Moraine, and without any adverse impacts on neighbouring/surrounding agricultural uses.
22Thus the Tribunal found that all the statutory tests had been met: that the matters of Provincial Interests have been appropriately considered; that the settlement proposal was consistent with the PPS and conformed to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; that the settlement proposal conformed to the appropriate versions of the Regional Official Plan and the Claremont Development Plan 1991; that all the criteria of s. 51(24) of the PA had been met; that the Draft Plan Conditions were reasonable and appropriate; that the settlement proposal represented good land use planning; and was in the public interest.
23Accordingly the Tribunal will:
a. Allow the ZBA appeal in part and order that the City’s Zoning By-law be amended by the ZBA as found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule A and appended to this decision as Attachment 1;
b. Allow the subdivision appeal in part and approve the Draft Plan as found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule B, and appended to this decision as Attachment 2;
c. Approve the Draft Plan Conditions as found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule C and appended hereto as Attachment 3; and
d. Order that pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the PA, that final approval of the Draft Plan be given by the City.
24The attachments appended to this Decision form part of the Decision.
25This 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3