Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002220 OLT-22-004764

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 2039505 Ontario Inc. Appellant: Anthony Chiarella Appellant: Crystal Beach Tennis and Yacht Club Appellant: M5V Inc. Appellant: Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. Appellant: 3101669 Nova Scotia Company, 1609652 Ontario Ltd. and Rose DiRenzo Appellant: Geoffrey Aldridge Appellant: Marz Homes (Crystal Beach) Inc.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 56 Municipality: Town of Fort Erie OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002220 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002220 OLT Case Name: Aldridge v. Fort Erie (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 2039505 Ontario Inc. Appellant: Anthony Chiarella Appellant: Crystal Beach Tennis and Yacht Club Appellant: M5V Inc. Appellant: Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. Appellant: 3101669 Nova Scotia Company, 1609652 Ontario Ltd. and Rose DiRenzo Appellant: Geoffrey Aldridge Appellant: Marz Homes (Crystal Beach) Inc.

Subject: By-law No. BL 144-2021 Municipality: Town of Fort Erie OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002221 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002220

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: M5V Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To rezone the subject lands to construct a 6-block stacked back-to-back townhouse development Reference Number: 350309-0522 Property Address: 0-15850 Rebstock Road Municipality: Town of Fort Erie OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004764 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004764 OLT Case Name: M5V Inc. v. Fort Erie (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Heard: July 18, 2023, by Video Hearing and Written Submissions July 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Crystal Beach Tennis and Yacht Club Nicholas Macos

Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. Sara J. Premi

3101669 Nova Scotia Company, 1000054526 Ontario Inc. (replacing 1609652 Ontario Ltd.) and Rose DiRenzo Sara J. Premi

M5V Inc. Rocco Vacca

Geoffrey Aldridge Self-represented

Marz Homes (Crystal Beach) Inc. Rebecca Locksley (in absentia) Ceili Boer

Town of Fort Erie Callum Shedden Dawne Jubb Dylan Nadeau (student-at-law)

4407 Erie Road Holding LLC Brian Duxbury

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON JULY 18, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON JULY 28, 2023

INTRODUCTION

1This decision and order relate to the hearing of the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in relation to several appeals pursuant to s. 17(24) and 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the decisions of the Town of Fort Erie (“Town”) to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 56 (“OPA 56”) and Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) No. 144-2021 (“ZBL No.144-2021”). OPA 56 is also known as the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan, and the lands subject to this amendment cover an approximate area of 359.4 hectares. There is also M5V Inc.’s s. 34(11) appeal matter under Tribunal File No. OLT-22-004764 which is for a second CMC.

2The Tribunal was required to deal with case management matters and two Motions at this CMC.

3Sara Premi, counsel for Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. mentioned that a matter Tribunal file No. OLT-23-000311, was intended to be scheduled and a request made for hearing together with these appeals. The Tribunal noted that the said matter is not scheduled. Ms. Premi will follow up with the Case Coordinator in that matter.

4Parties requested fifteen (15) days to be fixed for hearing of these appeals as the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) have been circulated. The Tribunal noted the issues needed to be further scoped and will schedule a 15-day hearing with a status CMC for updates from parties.

PARTY SUBSTITUTION/SOLICITOR REMOVAL

5The Joint Notice of Motion dated July 05, 2023, by 1609652 Ontario Ltd. to be substituted by 1000054526 Ontario Inc. and Sullivan Mahoney LLP’s (the solicitors) removal as solicitors for Rose DiRenzo was heard.

6The Tribunal granted Party Substitution to 1000054526 Ontario Inc. as the new owner of lands previously owned by 1609652 Ontario Ltd, after hearing from counsel Sara Premi and having received no objections from the Appellants or Parties.

7Although the affidavit in support stated that Ms. DiRenzo does not object to the solicitors’ removal as her solicitors, the Tribunal noted that Ms. DiRenzo did not appear at the CMC, and that there was no written evidence of her consent in the affidavit appended to the motion. As such, the Tribunal will withhold the removal of the solicitors until Ms. Premi files a letter of consent by Ms. DiRenzo to the discharge of the firm as her solicitors. Ms. Premi is directed to obtain that letter of consent and forward that to the Case Coordinator.

PROCEDURAL ORDER/ISSUES LIST

8Counsels are directed to provide both a PO and IL with deadlines filled in. The PO and IL are to be forwarded to the Case Coordinator by August 01, 2023.

CMC/HEARING

9The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC which will proceed by video on Friday, May 03, 2024, at 10 a.m.

Friday, May 03, 2024 at 10 a.m. (one-day CMC)

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165

Access Code: 687-587-165

Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 Toll-Free: 1-888-299-1889

Audio-only Access Code: 687-587-165

10The Hearing has been scheduled from Monday, August 12, 2024 to Friday August 30, 2024, by Video at 10 a.m.

11Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

Monday, August 12, 2024 at 10 a.m. (Fifteen-day (15) Merit Hearing)

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access Code: 660-145-013

Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 Toll-Free: 1-888-299-1889

Audio-only Access Code: 660-145-013

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: (Toll Free): 1-888-299-1889 or (647) 497-9373. The access codes are 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 hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

THE TOWN’S MOTION

15The Town’s motion dated June 02, 2023, and the added Party, 4407 Erie Road Holding LLC’s (4407) Response to Motion dated July 12, 2023, were heard orally and written submissions were directed.

16The Town’s motion was for orders to bring OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 into force and effect but excluding the Appellants’ properties that are under appeal in these proceedings. 4407’s Response was the filing of an affidavit in opposition to the Town’s motion.

17Of the Eight Appellants, only Mr. Aldridge orally opposed the Motion (but did not file any affidavit or provide any Planning Evidence). Crystal Beach Tennis and Yacht Club, through counsel, supported the motion orally, and the remaining Appellants did not take any position.

18The Tribunal directed the Town and 4407 to submit written submissions by July 28, 2023. Written submissions were received. The Tribunal determines in favor of the Town for the following reasons.

19The Tribunal is satisfied that s.17(50) and s.34(31) of the Planning Act permit the OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 to be, in part, brought into force and effect.

1. Section 17(50): On an appeal…under this section, the Tribunal may approve all or part of a plan as all or part of an official plan, make modifications to all or part of the plan and approve all or part of the plan as modified as an official plan or refuse to approve all or part of the plan.

2. Section 34(31): Before all of the appeals have been finally disposed of the Tribunal may make an order providing that any part of the By-law not in issue in the appeal shall be deemed to have come into force on the day the By-law was passed. (In this instance the ZBL No. 144-2021 was passed on November 22, 2021).

20Specifically, the Tribunal finds that the Tribunal’s decision in Casertano Developments Corp v. Vaughan (City) 2022 LN ON LPAT 898, establishes that the Tribunal has the authority to approve the Town’s motion in the manner described above pursuant to subsections 17(50) and 34(31) of the Planning Act when the following four (4) criteria are met:

1. Planning Evidence in Support of Approval of a Secondary Plan;

2. Remaining Appeals Scoped to Site Specific Appeals;

3. Draft Order Protects Remaining Appeals; and

4. Approval is in the Public Interest.

21In Casertano, the Tribunal approved the City of Vaughan’s motion for partial approval of the Vaughan Mills Centre Secondary Plan, bringing into force the Secondary Plan for the lands within the Plan area east of Highway 400 pursuant to subsection 17(50) of the Planning Act. The Draft Order appended to the Tribunal decision, and was ultimately issued by the Tribunal, whereby the rights of the remaining appellants on lands east of Highway 400, and Interested Parties, were protected. (This language is similar to the language proposed by the Town in the instant case).

22The Town submits that these four criteria are met with regards to the Town’s motion to implement the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan (CBSP) except for the properties currently under appeal. The Tribunal agrees with the Town’s submissions.

Planning Evidence in Support of Approval of Secondary Plan

23Alex Herlovitch, the Director of Planning and Development Services for the Town, and a Registered Professional Land Use Planner, provided an affidavit with regards to the Appellants’ properties, and concluded that the appeals were all related to identifiable properties within the CBSP Area. He concluded that the CBSP and ZBL No. 144-2021 represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017, the Greenbelt Plan 2006, the Regional Municipality of Niagara Official Plan (ROP), and the Town’s Official Plan (OP).

24Mr.Bender, the Director of Urban and Community Planning/Director of Planning, Transportation & Infrastructure at WSP, a professional services consulting firm with its primary office location in the City of Toronto, and a Registered Professional Land Use Planner, provided an additional affidavit with regards to the CBSP’s consistency with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). Mr. Bender concluded that there were no policies contained in the CBSP that are in conflict or are inconsistent with the PPS. Overall, Mr. Bender found that the CBSP represents good planning.

25The Tribunal accepts the affidavit evidence of these experts. There was no contrary planning evidence submitted. 4407’s expert, Kevin Eby’s affidavit, does not take issue with the opinions expressed by Messrs, Herlovitch and Bender in their respective affidavits in terms of conformity with the PPS, ROP, and the OP.

26The Tribunal finds that the first criterion established in Casertano is met.

Remaining Appeals Scoped to Site Specific Appeals

27The Herlovitch affidavit reproduces an email of the Appellant Geoffrey Aldridge sent to the Tribunal in which he stated, “This email is to advise that I have decided to scope my appeal so as to address only issues in relation to the proposed density of 0-15850 Rebstock Road.”

28The Tribunal notes that Crystal Beach Tennis & Yacht Club’s appeals are site specific, and supports the Town’s Motion. Marz Homes (Crystal Beach) Inc. and M5V Inc. appeals are site specific, and they take no position on the Town’s motion.

29No Appellants filed any affidavit by a land use planner in opposition to the Town’s motion.

30Other than Mr. Aldridge’s oral opposition to the motion (he did not submit contrary planning evidence), no other Appellant objected to the Motion (with one Appellant supporting) – indicative of the fact that their appeals will not be prejudiced by the approval of the Town’s Motion.

31It is the Town’s submission that by not opposing the Town’s motion, the Appellants have conceded that their respective appeals are scoped to their specific properties.

324407 was granted Party Status at the CMC held on June 08, 2023. Brian Duxbury, counsel for 4407, at the June 08 CMC in support of a Party Status request, represented that his client took no issue with the CBSP when it was approved. Only when the development application of Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. (CBC) for the adjacent property at 4409 Erie Road was submitted did his client get involved in the matter. 4407 did not file any IL. As a result, the Town submits that the 4407 appeal is also scoped to the property described municipally as 4407 Erie Road.

33Mr. Eby’s affidavit provided by 4407, goes through several issues raised in the CBC Notice of Appeal, and concludes that these issues extend beyond the specific property at 4409 Erie Road. The Town submits and the Tribunal agrees, that by not filing any affidavit opposing the Town’s motion or objecting to the proposed language of the Draft Order, the Appellants have all effectively agreed to scope their appeals. The Tribunal finds that 4407 being an added Party and sheltering under the issues of CBC has similarly scoped to its subject site. As such, it is appropriate to find that all the Appellants’ appeals relate to specific properties within OPA 56 area.

34With respect to the Town’s motion, the Tribunal finds that there is no inconsistency between the CBSP and the PPS. However, in the event that CBC, in its appeal, persuades the Tribunal that OPA 56 is not consistent with the PPS, the Tribunal will then need to amend the CBSP accordingly. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to do so, is preserved in the proposed order.

35The Tribunal finds that the second criterion established in Casertano has been met, as the appeals are scoped to the properties listed.

Draft Order Protects Remaining Appeals

36The Draft OPA Order submitted by the Town contains the following provisions:

2. For clarity, no portion of the Official Plan Amendment No. 56 shall be in force for the properties under appeal pending withdrawal of the Appeal or Order of the Tribunal”; and “3. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal hereby retains jurisdiction to consider and approve modifications to any policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, associated text, etc. approved herein, as may be required to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal.

37These provisions in the Draft Order gives the Tribunal full discretion to order any amendments to OPA 56 including the portions of land brought into force by the Order.

38The Tribunal has the jurisdiction under section 17(50) of the Planning Act to approve OPA 56 in part in accordance with the Draft Order in the same manner as the Tribunal approved the Official Plan Amendment in the Casertano decision. The Tribunal finds that the third criterion of Casertano is met.

Approval is in the Public Interest

39The Town provided the Tribunal with a supplementary affidavit of Anamika Dilwaria sworn July 14, 2023. Ms. Dilwaria is the Director of Planning and Development Services for the Corporation of the Town, and is a Registered Professional Land Use Planner.

40Ms. Dilwaria explains in the affidavit that over Forty (40) pre-consultation and development applications have been adversely affected by the uncertainty resulting from this appeal of OPA 56 initiated by these property owners in the CBSP area. The pre-consultation process has been prolonged, and the appeals have brought forth unnecessary formal development applications.

41The Town submits that this is evidence that the Town acted in the public interest when approving OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021. It also illustrates that the public interest is served by approving the CBSP, so that those property owners who wish to develop their properties in accordance with OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 as approved by the Council of the Town can do so.

42The property owners who were satisfied with the CBSP and ZBL No. 144-2021 and did not file any appeal, should not be prejudiced in the development of their properties by the fact that Eight property owners chose to appeal.

43The Tribunal notes that there are no Appellants, Parties, or Participants that can be considered a conservation or environmental group opposing the OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 on public interest grounds.

44The Appellants, other than Mr. Aldridge, are not seeking to reduce the development potential of their properties by their appeals, but rather to increase the development potential. If the policies of OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 are amended due to consistency and/or conformity issues, then all properties in the same category will get the benefit of the increased development potential of their properties.

45The approval of the Town’s motion will not have any adverse effect on the conduct of the hearing, as this has been determined by the PO.

46The Eby affidavit also makes it evident that the primary concern of 4407 is the intensification of lands other than those that are subject to the appeal.

47The Town submits that the legislative intent is evident in subsection 17(50) and 34(31) of the Planning Act and that the CBSP and ZBL No. 144-2021 should be brought into force in part where possible.

48The Tribunal finds that it needs to balance the private interests of the existing Appellants, the private interests of other property owners in the CBSP area, and the public interest in the efficacy of a Secondary Plan. This will allow the general public, and property owners to obviate the unnecessary step to make amendments to the OP in their quest for redevelopment or development.

49The Tribunal finds that an approval is in the public interest and the fourth criterion established in Casertano is satisfied.

Powers

50This Tribunal has the jurisdiction under subsection 17(50) of the Planning Act to approve the CBSP in part in accordance with the Draft Order, if thought fit, in the same manner as the Tribunal approved the Official Plan in the Casertano decision.

51Two (2) Tribunal decisions, Mac Mor of Canada Ltd. v. Brampton (City) 2020 LN ON LPAT 774 and 2006316 Ontario Inc. v. Penetanguishene (Town) 2023 LN ONLT 193, utilized subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to approve a Zoning By-law in part similar to the manner the Town is proposing in the Notice of Motion and more particularly in the Zoning By-law Draft Order.

52In Mac Mor, the Tribunal issued an Order to bring both an Official Plan and Zoning By-law into force with the exception of two (2) specific properties, however, there was no provision contained in the order for future amendments to the Official Plan if necessary.

53In 2006316 Ontario Inc., the Tribunal issued an Order to approve a Zoning By-law with the exception of specific portions of the By-law that were under appeal with respect to 221 Fox Street. However, in contrast to the decision in Mac Mor above, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to amend the Zoning By-law.

54The Town submits that the Tribunal in these decisions, interpreted the phrase “any part of the By-law not in issue in the appeal” in subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to permit approval of a By-law with the exception of the properties that were the subject of an appeal. The affidavit of Mr. Herlovitch concludes that all the appeals with regards to the CBSP relate to identifiable properties, recommends approving ZBL No. 144-2021, and excluding the identified properties. He stated that the By-law in general is good planning and conforms with the PPS.

55The Town further submits that this Tribunal should approve the Draft Order to bring ZBL No. 144-2021 into force except for the identified properties in the Zoning By-law Draft Order.

56Richmond Hill (Town) v. Elginbay Corp. (2018) O.J No. 716, is a well-known Ontario Court of Appeal decision with respect to an appeal of an OMB decision on the OP for the Town of Richmond Hill, where it imposed a 25 percent cap on the alternative parkland dedication. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal has broad powers on appeal to “approve, modify or refuse to approve all or part of an OP under s. 17(50).”

57These broad powers of the Tribunal allow the Tribunal to interpret Sections 17(50) and 34(31) of the Planning Act so as to allow Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws to come into effect in part in different ways. In some decisions, the Tribunal has approved an OPA in part by excluding certain policies and provisions which are subject to appeal. In other decisions such as the Casertano decision, the Tribunal has allowed the Official Plan Amendment to come into force in the Secondary Plan area with the exception of certain properties which are subject to appeal.

58The Town submits that this is an appropriate case for approval of the Secondary Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By-law in the Secondary Plan area, with the exception of the specific properties listed in the draft orders.

SUMMARY

59The Tribunal agrees with Counsel that s.17(50) and s.34(31) of the Planning Act grant powers for the Tribunal to approve and bring into force OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021.

60When the Motion was filed, the Town held discussions with the Appellants and the Tribunal was informed that the Appellants had, at that time, no objections to bringing the OPA 56 and the ZBL No. 144-2021 into force subject to the Appellants’ properties being excluded from the operation of OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 pending appeal. In response to the Tribunal’s granting Party Status to 4407 and inquiry on objections, if any, through affidavits, only 4407 responded by affidavit in opposition to the motion.

61After careful consideration of the motion documents and submissions, the Tribunal finds that it is in the public interest to bring OPA 56 and the ZBL into force and effect. There are some Forty unnecessary applications that are filed and several languishing applications that came about as a consequence of these existing appeals. The Tribunal finds that there is no prejudice to any party while reserving the full authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal with respect to the existing appeals. It is just, expeditious, and proper to bring the OPA 56 and the ZBL No. 144-2021 into force to stem further unnecessary applications, and to release the Town’s resources for other matters. Such freeing of municipal resources and approval of the OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 to go into effect are in the public interest.

62The Tribunal finds that the CBSP is consistent with the PPS and that the approval of the OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 and thereby bringing into force and effect is appropriate as the four criteria of Casertano have been met. The Tribunal would exercise its broad powers.

63Parties in similar appeals have often by consent, brought an OPA or ZBA into effect by either of two methods: either bringing into force the un-appealed portions of the ZBL and OPA or by the exclusion of Appellants’ properties from the operation and effect of the OPA or ZBA, pending their appeals’ disposition.

64In the instant matter, the Tribunal finds that excluding the Appellants’ properties from the operation of the OPA 56 and ZBL No. 144-2021 pending the appeals conforms to the legislative purpose and intent of s.17(50) and s.34(31) of the Planning Act. It amounted to a part approval of the OPA 56 when the Appellants’ site-specific appeals are excluded from the provisions of the OPA. Similarly, bringing into force and effect of the ZBL and excluding the Appellants’ properties from its operation is a partial approval of the ZBL No. 144-2021 that conforms to the intent and purpose of s.34(31) of the Planning Act.

65The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no conflict in the Legislative intent with the different language used in s.17(50) and s.34(31) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal will allow the motion in part, bring into force, and effect the OPA 56 in part except for s. 4.22.6 III(l); 4.22.7; and s.4.22.9.9 while excluding the Appellants’ properties, until the appeals are disposed of or withdrawn. The ZBL No. 144-2021 shall be deemed to have come into force in part on the day it was passed but excluding the Appellants’ properties from the effect thereof. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the appeals remains and is not compromised.

66Shortly before the issuance of this decision, the City informed the Tribunal that Crystal Bay Cottages Inc. had withdrawn its appeal. Thus, the excluded properties will be for the remaining appeals and Attachments B and E are amended accordingly.

ORDER

67The Tribunal orders that:

1. 1000054526 Ontario Inc. is substituted for 1609652 Ontario Ltd.

2. Removal of Sullivan Mahoney LLP as solicitors for Rose DiRenzo is withheld until written confirmation of consent is received from Ms. DiRenzo by the Tribunal.

3. The Parties shall file a PO and IL as amended with the Case Coordinator by August 01, 2023.

4. The PO shall govern the proceedings.

5. The Town of Erie’s Motion is allowed in part.

6. Official Plan Amendment No. 56, reproduced herein as Attachment “A”, is hereby approved in part, and brought into force for all lands within the limits of the CBSP as identified in OPA No. 56 with the exception of the properties under appeal, reproduced herein as Attachment “B”, and with the exception of the policies listed in Attachment “C”, pursuant to subsection 17(50) of the Planning Act.

7. For clarity, no portion of OPA No. 56 shall be in force for the properties under appeal, pending withdrawal of the appeals or order of the Tribunal.

8. Zoning By-law 144-2021, reproduced herein as Attachment “D”, is hereby approved in part and brought into force for all lands to which Zoning By-law 144-2021 applies as set out therein with the exception of the properties under appeal, reproduced herein as Attachment “E”, pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act.

9. For clarity, no portion of Zoning By-law 144-2021 shall be in force for the properties of the appellants under appeal, pending withdrawal of the appeals or order of the Tribunal.

10. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal hereby retains jurisdiction to consider and approve modifications to any policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, associated text, etc. approved herein, as may be required to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal.

11. The Tribunal may be spoken to concerning issues arising from the implementation of this Order.

68The Member is not seized.

69There is no further notice.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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 B

OPA Excepted Properties under appeal:

1. 475 Ridgeway Road
2. 0-15850 Rebstock Road
3. 3856 Terrace Lane
4. 0-15084 Terrace Lane
5. 0-15085 Terrace Lane
6. 0-15086 Terrace Lane
7. 0-15097 Terrace Lane
8. 412 Ridgeway Road

Attachment C

Excepted Policies:

1. OPA Policy 4.22.6 III (I)

2. OPA Policy 4.22.7

3. OPA Policy 4.22.9.9

Attachment E

ZBL Excepted Properties under appeal:

1. 475 Ridgeway Road
2. 0-15850 Rebstock Road
3. 3856 Terrace Lane
4. 0-15084 Terrace Lane
5. 0-15085 Terrace Lane
6. 0-15086 Terrace Lane
7. 0-15097 Terrace Lane
8. 412 Ridgeway Road