Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
October 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000283
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Power Play Equity Capital Inc. and Treasure Hill
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of low to medium density residential uses, with a total of 752 dwelling units.
Reference Number:
R16/23
Property Address:
65 and 105 Ripplewood Road
Municipality/UT:
Cambridge/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000283
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000283
OLT Case Name:
Power Play Equity Capital Inc. and Treasure Hill v. Cambridge (City)
Heard:
October 1, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Power Play Equity Capital Inc. and Treasure Hill
P. DeMelo
D. Pateman, in absentia
City of Cambridge
N. Auty
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo
A. Gazzola
F. McCrea, in absentia
Waterloo Region District School Board
P. Hertz
S. Syed
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON OCTOBER 1, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in these proceedings before the Tribunal relating to an appeal brought by Power Play Equity Capital Inc. and Treasure Hill (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) from the refusal of the City of Cambridge (“City”) of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) relating to lands municipally known as 65 and 105 Ripplewood Road (“subject property”).
2The subject property is approximately 38.98 hectares with approximately 200 metres of frontage along Ripplewood Road. The subject property is currently comprised of agricultural fields with scattered woodlots and wetlands.
3The Appellant filed an application for a ZBA to facilitate the development of low-to-medium density residential uses on the subject property with a total of 752 dwelling units consisting of a mix of single detached and townhouse dwellings. The proposed ZBA would remove the existing hold relating to the provision of servicing and further request zoning to facilitate the development of the proposed draft plan of subdivision (“draft plan”).
4The Appellant filed a corresponding application for a draft plan with The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Region”), which has not yet been appealed to the Tribunal. The Recommendation Report for the ZBA prepared by City Planning Staff recommended refusal of the ZBA citing inter alia that approval of the ZBA would be premature as the draft plan must be reviewed and finalized in order to ensure that the zoning can be accurately applied to the subject property once the draft plan is finalized.
5At the commencement of the CMC, Counsel for the Appellant provided the Tribunal with an update on the status of the draft plan indicating that it was undergoing final modifications. He anticipated that an appeal of the draft plan due to the non-decision of the Region would be filed with the Tribunal in the coming weeks.
CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE
6The Tribunal confirmed with Counsel that there were no known issues with service of the Notice of the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service of Notice of Christopher J. Drew affirmed on September 11, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to the CMC.
STATUS REQUESTS
7In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received three requests for Party status from the Region, the Waterloo Region District School Board (“WRDSB”) and Funchal Enterprises Inc. and Urros Investments Inc. (“Funchal & Urros”).
8As the upper-tier municipality, the Region is a review and commenting authority on the ZBA and provided comments during the application process. Given the obvious interest of the Region, and with the consensus of the Appellant and the City, the Tribunal found that the Region’s participation in the Appeal as a party is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding and granted the Region status as a Party to the Appeal.
9In its written status request form and through oral submissions, Counsel for WRDSB explained its prior involvement in the ZBA application process and the related application for the draft plan, which is not yet before the Tribunal. During pre-consultation, WRDSB made submissions to the City and Region identifying, among other things, that a school site was required in the proposed development. WRDSB has jurisdiction in the area of the proposed development and intends to fully participate in the appeal. Given the obvious interest of WRDSB, and with the consensus of the Appellant and the City, the Tribunal granted WRDSB status as a Party to the Appeal.
10In its written status request form, Funchal & Urros noted that it owns land adjacent to the subject property and as such, it wishes to monitor any proposed development on the subject property but does not intend on bringing any contested evidence. During oral submissions at the CMC, Counsel for Funchal & Urros amended its request and advised the Tribunal that it now intends to fully participate and will call a planner and raise issues to be adjudicated, however anticipated that any issues would be resolved prior to a hearing of the merits. The Tribunal raised a concern that the Municipal Record on file did not indicate that Funchal & Urros participated in the application process. Counsel was unable to confirm Funchal & Urros’ prior involvement, if any, as they were retained following the completion of the ZBA application process at the municipal level.
11Counsel for the City did not take a position on the Party status request of Funchal & Urros. Counsel for the Appellant noted that the position taken by Funchal & Urros at the CMC was different than its written request of maintaining a “watching brief” and submitted that Counsel for Funchal & Urros acknowledged that any issues raised would likely be resolved prior to a hearing of the merits, resulting in no witnesses or evidence ultimately being called. The Appellant further submitted that allowing Participant status to Funchal & Urros would enable it to identify issues, if any, which could be considered by the Parties and the Tribunal.
12Upon considering the submissions of Counsel, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Funchal & Urros and denied it Party status. In the absence of confirmation that Funchal & Urros participated in the municipal application process and the failure to identify any issues, the Tribunal determined that Funchal & Urros’ engagement as a Party would not assist the Tribunal in making its decision. However, the Tribunal did allow Funchal & Urros to re-submit a Party status request at the second CMC for the ZBA providing that it addresses any prior involvement in the ZBA process and identifies issues in its written request form. To be clear, the Tribunal is not making any determination on the potential Party status request of Funchal & Urros and confirms that the presiding Member at the second CMC will consider and determine the Party status request of Funchal & Urros if any such request is made.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT / MEDIATION
13Counsel for the Appellant advised that it was interested in pursuing Tribunal-led mediation and had discussed its potential with the City and Region. The Parties agreed that they were open to Tribunal-led mediation and would consider pursuing a mediation assessment following the receipt of the final version of the draft plan. The Tribunal suggested, and Counsel for the Appellant agreed, that Funchal & Urros be included in any settlement and mediation discussions.
NEXT STEPS
14Following discussions with the City and the Region, Counsel for the Appellant requested that the Tribunal schedule a further CMC for the ZBA to coincide with the first CMC for the draft plan in order for the request to be made to consolidate the two appeals. As noted above, the draft plan appeal is anticipated to be filed with the Tribunal in the coming weeks and the Tribunal will endeavor to have it case managed with the ZBA appeal. Counsel for the Appellant noted that he would ensure to keep all Parties advised of the scheduling of the upcoming CMC.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waterloo Region District School Board are both granted Party status to the proceedings.
16THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT Funchal Enterprises Inc. and Urros Investments Inc. is granted Participant status to the proceedings.
17The case management directives above are so ordered.
18There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
VICE CHAIR
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.