Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 10, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004357
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Bryan and Jennifer Beaudoin
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Appeal of Decision
Description: To permit a modular home as a secondary dwelling unit
Reference Number: R-07 12022
Property Address: 1620 St. Clair Parkway
Municipality: Township of St. Clair
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004357
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004357
OLT Case Name: Beaudoin v. St Clair (Township)
Heard: April 26, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Bryan Beaudoin Jennifer Beaudoin
Self-represented
Township of St. Clair
Ken Strong
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON APRIL 26, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the second Case Management Conference (“Second CMC”) with respect to an appeal under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act by Bryan and Jennifer Beaudoin (“Appellants”) from the refusal by the Council of the Township of St. Clair (“Township”) to pass a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to the Township’s Zoning By-law No. 17 of 2003 (“ZBL”), pertaining to lands municipally known as 1620 St. Clair Parkway in the Township (“Subject Property”).
2After the first CMC on February 3, 2023 (“First CMC”), the Township advised that it would like notice to be given for the Second CMC. As a result, the Second CMC proceeded with Notice, in accordance with direction provided by the Tribunal. At the Second CMC, no further issues were raised with respect to Notice. As such, no further notice is required. The Affidavit of Service of Notice of the Second CMC, sworn by Kenneth Reginald Strong on March 9, 2023, is marked as Exhibit 1 to the Second CMC.
3The purpose of the ZBA is that the Appellants would like to convert their already-existing garage into a second dwelling (“Proposal”). The ZBL has certain restrictions with respect to second dwellings, and the Appellants require a ZBA as a result.
4The Township’s understanding of the original Application had been that the Appellants sought the ZBA in order to allow for a modular home to be placed on the Subject Property and become a permanent secondary dwelling unit. At the First CMC, the Tribunal directed that the Parties clarify and discuss what is being sought in order to determine the best way for this proceeding to move forward.
5At the Second CMC, the Township’s counsel advised that the Township had received, prior to the Second CMC, detailed plans for the Proposal, and they were significantly different from the original Application. As a result, the following options were suggested:
The Appellants withdraw their current Application and submit a new one for the revised plans; or
The Parties engage in Tribunal-assisted mediation, which may allow them to reach an understanding of the issues or resolve same.
6The Tribunal enquired as to whether the Application was changed to such an extent that the current appeal before the Tribunal should be withdrawn as a result, and whether a new public process would be required. The Parties were unsure of this, and it was determined that a mediation would assist regardless. It could be determined at the mediation whether it would be prudent for the Appellants to withdraw their current appeal and re-submit their Application in its updated form to the Township.
7As such, on consent of the Parties, the next step to take place on this matter will be Tribunal-assisted Mediation. The Parties were directed to make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services. The Township’s Counsel undertook to do this.
8The Township’s Counsel also advised that a Third CMC or a Telephone Conference Call may be required pending the results of the mediation. The Parties were directed to request same from the Case Coordinator if required.
PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
9The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating some Participant Status Requests.
10Samantha Jenkins, on behalf of NOVA Chemicals, submitted a Participant Status Request, and attended the Second CMC. In submissions received prior to the CMC, it was explained that a pipeline owned by NOVA Chemicals was currently in operation underground on the Subject Property. NOVA Chemicals raised concerns with the impacts of a ZBA on their pipeline. However, at the Second CMC, it became clear that the Proposal pertained to a part of the Subject Property located far away from the pipeline, at a distance that alleviated NOVA Chemicals’ concerns. Thus, Ms. Jenkins withdrew NOVA Chemicals’ request for Participant Status.
11Sandbar Lake Investment Co. Inc. (“Sandbar”), represented by Merle Hazzard at the Second CMC, submitted a Participant Status request, raising concerns that the Proposal would interfere with his use and enjoyment of his land, and negatively impact the future development of it, in various ways. The Tribunal found that Sandbar had an interest in the matter and would assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the Proposal on the community. Moreover, neither the Appellants nor the Township objected to this request. As such, the Tribunal granted Participant Status to Sandbar.
12The Tribunal, through the Township, also received a letter from Gordon Vickerd, raising concerns with the proposal. However, Mr. Vickerd did not submit a Participant Status Request. Moreover, he did not attend the Second CMC to seek status. As such, the Tribunal was unable to consider Mr. Vickerd’s role in this matter.
13In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received no other requests for status (Party or Participant).
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
14The Parties produced a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) prior to the Second CMC, in accordance with the directions received at the First CMC.
15However, in light of the Parties’ submissions that Tribunal-assisted Mediation would be beneficial in this matter, as well as the understanding that the nature of the Application may have changed, it was determined that the PO and IL would be reviewed at a later date.
16It is noted that the issues listed on the draft IL may be informative for the mediation, but may also be revised as a result of it.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Sandbar Lake Investment Co. Inc. is now a Participant in these proceedings.
18There will be no further notice.
19The Member is not seized, but may be available for case management, should procedural issues arise and scheduling permit.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE 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.