Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 01, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000435
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(8) the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 3
Appellant: Darryl McNichol
Applicant: Peel District School Board
Subject: Conditions of Approval of a Development Permit Application
Description: To construct electrical serviced permanent signage on an existing lot that supports an institutional use (elementary school) and accessory facilities.
Reference Number: P/P/2021-2022/410
Property Address: 17247 Shaws Creek Road
Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000435
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000435
OLT Case Name: McNichol v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: August 08, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Darryl McNichol | Self-represented |
| Niagara Escarpment Commission | Brendon Henderson |
| Peel District School Board | Jeff Vandenhoek |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE AND ROBERT STEINBERG ON AUGUST 8, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1Tribunal Members constitute Hearing Officers and the Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office ("NEHO") for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act ("NEPDA").
2This was the first Case Management Conference ("CMC") before the NEHO with respect to an appeal under section 25(8) of the NEPDA by Darryl McNichol ("Appellant") against the Conditional Approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission ("NEC") of a permit applied for by Jeff Vandenhoek, on behalf of the Peel District School Board ("Applicant"). The permit seeks the construction of an electrical serviced permanent sign ("Electrical Sign") at 17247 Shaws Creek Road, in the Town of Caledon ("Subject Site"), that supports an institutional use (elementary school) and accessory facilities.
3The Hearing Office found that the Applicant has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, will be impacted by the Hearing Office's decision, and will assist the Hearing Office in making its decision. The Hearing Office found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Applicant as a Party and granted it Party status, without objection from the other Parties.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ISSUES
4A draft Procedural Order was not filed with the Hearing Office prior to the CMC, and no Issues List had been prepared by the Parties. The Hearing Office explained the purpose of the CMC and, with the assistance of the Hearing Office, the Appellant outlined the issues which had led to his filing of the appeal. The Appellant's concerns related to excessive lights at the Subject Site, which would be exacerbated by the addition of the Electrical Sign, as well as to the numerous signs that already existed on the Subject Site in an unorganized manner, which would be exacerbated by the addition of yet another sign.
5The Hearing Office enquired as to whether the Parties had had an opportunity to discuss these concerns and issues in pursuit of a resolution. The Parties advised that they had engaged in discussions and were attempting to achieve a resolution. The Hearing Office enquired further as to what matters remained outstanding. The Appellant indicated that his concerns remained, and he wished that some already-existing signs and some already-existing lights could be removed if the Electrical Sign was to be installed. He wished the Electrical Sign could act as a replacement of, rather than an addition to, some of the lights and signs that were already on the Subject Site.
6The Applicant explained that the Electrical Sign, at this Subject Site, was an example of the signs that it intended to place at all of its schools, and, as part of its branding and overall plans for the future, it would be necessary to proceed with installing the Electrical Sign. However, the Applicant was amenable to looking into changing the direction of the already-existing lights to potentially face away from the Appellant's property or face in a direction that was less intrusive. With respect to the already-existing signs on the Subject Site, the Applicant explained that it was the by-law that required those signs to be placed on the Subject Site, but the Applicant was amenable to looking into whether their location could be revised in any way. Moreover, the Applicant intended to take steps to fix the signs, which had become somewhat crooked as a result of snow-plow machines hitting into them.
7The Appellant, in response, confirmed that those were his two main issues in this appeal and he would be open to discussing them further with the Applicant to see if anything could be done to resolve his concerns.
8It was determined that a second CMC would be scheduled to allow the Parties to engage in discussions and attempt to resolve the issues amongst themselves. If the Parties are able to reach such a settlement, they are directed to advise the Tribunal in advance of or at the second CMC. If the Parties are not able to reach a settlement, the second CMC can be utilized to finalize any outstanding issues, to schedule a Hearing, and to address any additional procedural matters.
9In advance of the second CMC, the Parties are encouraged to discuss. Moreover, the Appellant is encouraged to determine if he wishes to pursue the appeal, and if so, to frame his issues appropriately with respect to the applicable legislation and its application to the prevalent issues in this matter.
SECOND CMC
10The Hearing Office directed that a second CMC will be held on Friday, September 22, 2023. As mentioned, the Hearing Office directs that the Parties contact the Case Coordinator in advance of the second CMC if the matter resolves and the Appellant wishes to withdraw his appeal.
11On Friday, September 22, 2023, at 10 a.m., Parties are asked to log into the video CMC at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections, and to join the event using the following coordinates:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365
Access code: 709-076-365
12Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above.
14Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the CMC event may be directed to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
15The Tribunal Orders as follows:
a. The Applicant, Peel District School Board, is now a Party in this proceeding.
b. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled to take place on Friday, September 22, 2023, at 10 a.m., by video hearing, and one (1) day has been set aside.
16There will be no further notice.
17These Hearing Officers are not seized.
"Bita M. Rajaee"
BITA M. RAJAEE HEARING OFFICER
"Robert Steinberg"
ROBERT STEINBERG HEARING OFFICER
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.