Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001052
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Developments Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to make a decision
Purpose: To permit the development of a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 356 residential units in the form of single detached and townhouse dwellings, as well as a 2.3 hectare (5.7 acres) commercial block fronting on Tenth Line and blocks for a parkette, a stormwater management pond and greenlands system
Property Address/Description: Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 10
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: 19T(W)-01.001
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001053
Legacy Case No.: PL091031
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001052
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL090995
OLT Case Name: Courtney Valley Estates Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)
Heard: November 24, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Developments Inc. | Jennifer Meader Jessica De Marinnis |
| Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville | R. Andrew Biggart |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON NOVEMBER 24, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a Video Hearing Event to update the Tribunal on the progress of discussions between Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Developments Inc. (“Applicant” or “Appellant”) and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (“Town”) to extend the approval of the draft plan of subdivision that was temporarily extended until December 22, 2023, by the Tribunal.
2The original Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) on October 15, 2010. The Draft Plan has been subject to several extensions since that time. The latest extension was set to lapse on October 15, 2023.
3Ms. Meader, Counsel for the Applicant advised the Tribunal in her correspondence that the Draft Plan of Subdivision cannot proceed to development until a trunk sanitary sewer (“Trunk Sewer”) has been constructed up Town Line from the south to the Subject Lands (“Trunk Sewer”). She stated that the Applicant has been awaiting this core infrastructure since the Draft Plan was originally approved in 2010.
4Ms. Meader argued that there are other draft approved lands north of the Subject Lands that are also held up from developing until the Trunk Sewer has been constructed through the Subject Lands.
5Ms. Meader outlined in her correspondence that the Applicant has met with Town staff on various occasions over the past three years and is working to satisfy the conditions of draft approval to be ready to proceed with development at such time as when the necessary services are available.
6Mr. Biggart, Counsel for the Town in his correspondence outlined the Town’s opposition to an extension and the temporary extension until December 22, 2023.
7Mr. Biggart argued that when the previous extension was sought, the landowner’s counsel wrote to the Town in July 2020, seeking its consent to an extension. That request was approximately three months prior to the scheduled expiration date of the Draft Plan. The Town agreed to the extension at that time with the full expectation that the landowner would finally take all steps necessary to fulfill the conditions. The Applicant followed the same steps when an extension was sought in 2017.
8Mr. Biggart stated that no similar steps were taken by the Applicant to contact the Town to seek its consent to an extension as October 15, 2023 approached. He continued that the landowner took no steps until twelve days prior to the lapsing date with a request submitted to the Tribunal on October 3, 2023 for an extension.
9Mr. Biggart argued that there are issues with the Draft Plan itself. He reasoned that “a Draft Plan that constituted ‘good planning’ and which was in conformity with and consistent with the relevant policy documents of the day in 2010 does not necessarily constitute ‘good planning’ today.”
10Counsel have worked cooperatively together to resolve the matter. The Tribunal thanks Counsel for their assistance to the Tribunal in establishing a procedure moving forward.
11Mr. Biggart argued that a merit hearing with a decision prior to December 22, 2023, would be the best alternative for the Town in lieu of a decision to not extend the Draft Plan beyond December 22, 2023.
12Ms. Meader argued that it would be preferable to have a merit hearing in the latter part of January 2024.
13Counsel and the Tribunal received correspondence on the evening of November 23, 2023, from Alexander Suriano, Co-Counsel for Stouffville Phase 3 East Landowners Group Inc. (“Landowners Group”), requesting party status to the proceedings.
14Mr. Suriano advised that it is not the intent of the Landowners Group to unduly extend the proceedings, and the arguments are focused on how the lapsing of Draft Approval would impact the Landowners Group.
15Mr. Biggart objected to the request for party status. Ms. Meader supported the request as the Landowner’s lands are located directly north and abutting the Appellant’s lands.
16Given the timelines, the Tribunal advised that it would be unrealistic to render a decision on the extension before December 22, 2023. In addition, there is no information or evidence to assist the Tribunal in rendering a decision on the matter.
17Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal directs that a Hearing of the Merits is scheduled for one day on January 31, 2024.
18Given the adjacency of the Landowners Group to the subject property, the Tribunal directs that it will determine the request for party status through written motion and submissions.
19The Tribunal will endeavour to render a decision on the motion as quickly as possible to assist Counsel in their preparation for the Hearing of the Merits.
20The Schedule for submissions will be as follows:
a. Written Submission from the Landowners Group by end of day, December 1, 2023.
b. Reply submission from the Applicant by end of day, December 5, 2023.
c. Reply submission from the Town by end of day, December 12, 2023.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions and rulings as set out above.
22The Draft Approval of Subdivision is granted an extension until a decision of the Tribunal is determined after the Hearing of the Merits.
23There will be no further notice.
24The Member is seized.
25The Member may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if there are any issues with respect to the implementation of this Order.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.