Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 16, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002091
(Formerly PL210217)
OLT-22-002100
(Formerly PL130063)
OLT-22-002115
(Formerly PL151086)
OLT-22-002147
(Formerly PL160076)
OLT-22-002084
(Formerly PL171407)
OLT-22-002079
(Formerly PL171408)
OLT-22-002076
(Formerly PL171409)
OLT-22-002171
(Formerly PL171515)
OLT-22-002085
(Formerly PL180303)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant: Kerry L.W. Doughty
Appellant: Ferma Aggregates Inc.
Appellant: Jennifer Graham; and others
Subject: Official Plan
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.: PL120217
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002091
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL120217
OLT Case Name: Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 35
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002100
Legacy Case No.: PL130063
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002100
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL130063
OLT Case Name: J. Stollar Construction Ltd v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited
Subject: By-law No. D06-18-103
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002108
Legacy Case No.: PL130064
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002100
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL130063
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Catherine Gravely
Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject: Official Plan Amendment No. 15
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002115
Legacy Case No.: PL151086
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002115
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL151086
OLT Case Name: Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Catherine Gravely
Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 17
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002147
Legacy Case No.: PL160076
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002147
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL160076
OLT Case Name: Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant: BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant: Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant: Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002084
Legacy Case No.: PL171407
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002084
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171407
OLT Case Name: Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Comhold Investments Ltd.
Appellant: Catherine Gravely
Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant: William Westcott
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 14
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002079
Legacy Case No.: PL171408
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002079
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171408
OLT Case Name: Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant: BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant: Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant: Catherine Gravely; and others
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 16
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002076
Legacy Case No.: PL171409
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002076
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171409
OLT Case Name: Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Comhold Investments, Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Urban, Highway Commercial and Agricultural
Proposed Designation: Urban
Purpose: To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description: 3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Approval Authority File No.: D01-16-156
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002171
Legacy Case No.: PL171515
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171515
OLT Case Name: Comhold Investments v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Comhold Investments et al
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 6-87 and 16-78 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Existing Zoning: General Rural (A1), Highway Commercial (C2), Community Facility (CF) and Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (TBD)
Purpose: To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description: 3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.: D06-35-074
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003781
Legacy Case No.: PL171516
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171515
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Comhold Investments et al
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Purpose: To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description: 3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.: D05-35-019
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003782
Legacy Case No.: PL180414
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171515
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Highway Commercial, Tourist Commercial and Environmental Protection
Proposed Designation: Highway Commercial, Mixed Use Gateway, Prestige Industrial and Parks and Open Space
Purpose: To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description: 2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Approval Authority File No.: D01-17-005
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002085
Legacy Case No.: PL180303
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180303
OLT Case Name: Bromont Homes Inc. v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 93-90 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Agricultural (A), Highway Commercial (CH) and Open Space Exception Three (OS-3) Zones
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description: 2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.: D06-17-020
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002088
Legacy Case No.: PL180304
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants: Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Purpose: To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description: 2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.: D05-17-002
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002090
Legacy Case No.: PL180305
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180303
Heard: October 4, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Kawartha Lakes
Denitza Koev Stephen J. D’Agostino (in absentia)
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Raj Kehar Denise Baker (in absentia)
Comhold Investments Limited
Tom Halinski David Neligan (in absentia)
Kerry Doughty
Richard J. Taylor
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY n. eisazadeh and steven cooke ON October 4, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
Introduction
1This Hearing determines the last two Phases (Phases 5 and 7, as detailed below) of the total 8 Phases of Hearings related to the appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes (“City”) 2012 Official Plan (“CKLOP”) and its Secondary Plans (“SP”), which are being administratively processed by this Tribunal under OLT Lead Case No. OLT-22-002091 et al. By prior Order of this Panel, Phase 5 (“Bobcaygeon Secondary Plan Appeal” or “OPA 14”), inclusive of the appeals of non-decisions pertaining to the private applications made by Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch (“Comhold Appeal”), was merged to be heard one after the other with Phase 7 (“Omemee Secondary Plan Appeal” or “OPA 17”). Hereinafter, they shall collectively be referred to as the “Combined Phases”.
2The Combined Phases were initially scheduled for a five-and-a-half-week Hearing commencing September 11, 2024. However, as a result of the cooperation of the Parties and their respective professionals who have been identified as expert witnesses for the purposes of these Appeals, resolution of the matters in their entirety was reached. Accordingly, the Hearing for the Combined Phases was converted to a one-day Settlement Motion, from which this Decision of the Tribunal arises. The Tribunal has determined that the partial approval of the subject Combined Phases of Appeals should be allowed.
BACKGROUND
3At the outset, the Tribunal notes that it has received confirmation from Tom Halinski, Counsel for Comhold et al., withdrawing the Appeal of the proposed plan of subdivision bearing Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-003782 (formerly PL180414), such that the matter is no longer before the Tribunal.
4In addition, the Appeal by Kerry Doughty was previously adjourned sine die (“Doughty Appeal”). Counsel for the City, Denitza Koev, advised that they have now entered into Minutes of Settlement with Mr. Doughty and also reached final resolution of that matter. Resolution of that matter is reflected in the Order No. 6 below, now approved by this Tribunal.
5The Tribunal has received the fifth Statement of Agreed Facts dated April 30, 2024, which is executed by three land use planners listed as expert witnesses for the purposes of these proceedings and contains recommendations for policy and mapping changes to OPA 14 and OPA 17 in order to resolve the majority of issues that were scheduled to be addressed during the Combined Phase Hearing.
6The Tribunal received the evidence of Rory Baksh, RPP, pertaining to the proposed modifications to OPA 14 and OPA 17, as set out in the fifth Statement of Agreed Facts and reflected within Attachments “1” and Attachment “2” hereto, and also received the evidence of Mr. Baksh in support of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment proposed in Attachment “3” hereto, as well as in respect of the modifications pertaining to the Doughty Appeal as reflected in the Order No. 6 below.
7The Tribunal further heard submissions from Counsel for the City and from Counsel for the other Parties related to the proposed modifications and amendments.
8The Tribunal was presented Minutes of Settlement by Counsel for the City that represent a Settlement as between the Parties with respect to all of the Combined Phase Issues identified in Attachment “2” to the Procedural Order (“PO”) issued on January 10, 2024, as well as in respect of the Doughty Appeal.
9The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make modifications to OPA 14 and OPA 17, and approve all or part of those planning documents, as modified, in accordance with subsections 17(50) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”).
10The Tribunal further has the jurisdiction to Amend the Zoning By-law that is before it under these proceedings in accordance with subsection 34(26) of the Act.
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
11Mr. Baksh has provided the background information as to the recommended policy and mapping modifications made to OPA 14 and OPA 17, as well as the Amendments to Zoning By-law No. 6-87, the particulars of which are set out in Attachments “1”, Attachment “2” and Attachment “3” of Order No. 6 below, now approved by this Tribunal.
12As confirmed by Mr. Baksh’s testimony, the modifications and amendments are predominantly editorial in nature, provide clarification, improve readability, improve organization, align with policy, and are consistent with changes previously approved by Tribunal Decisions. Mr. Baksh explained in detail that the more substantial modifications and amendments bring the revised SP into conformity with the applicable policy framework and former Tribunal Decisions. Mr. Baksh also testified that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments provide the appropriate Zoning framework for the Comhold Appeal.
13Mr. Baksh confirmed to the Tribunal that these amendments and modifications are an appropriate means of resolving the entirety of the issues for the Combined Phases of Hearing and the Doughty Appeal, and which bring a close to these multi-phased matters in their entirety.
14Mr. Baksh has provided his professional opinion that the modifications and amendments to OPA 14 and OPA 17 are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and either conform or do not conflict with the CKLOP. Mr. Baksh is of the opinion that Order No. 6 will conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, both 2006 and 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”), and that these policies, maps, and appendices to the relevant OPAs, as referred to and amended with this Order, are consistent with matters of Provincial interest and represent good planning in the public interest.
15Mr. Baksh further confirmed his opinion that the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of the Comhold Appeal is also consistent with the PPS, conforms to and/or does not conflict with the applicable Growth Plans, conforms to and/or does not conflict with the Tribunal approved CKLOP which is in effect, and represents good planning and forms part of an appropriate resolution of the remaining and Combined Phases of Appeal.
16The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning evidence provided by Mr. Baksh and finds that the proposed policy and mapping modifications to OPA 14 and OPA 17, as well as the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment as they will be implemented by the appended Order, is consistent with the CKLOP, the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plans, has regard to matters of Provincial interest as provided for in section 2 of the Act, and represents good planning in the public interest.
17The Tribunal finds that the proposed draft Order submitted in support of the Motion is appropriate and approves the proposed policy and mapping modifications and amendments to OPA 14 and OPA 17, and so also approves the amendment to Zoning By-law No. 6-87. It further finds appropriate and approves the use of the Holding provisions as set out in Attachment “3” to the appended Order No. 6.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
I. OPA 14 is modified in accordance with the textual and mapping amendments set out in the revised Bobcaygeon Secondary Plan, dated September 30, 2024, at Attachment “1” to this Order and so modified OPA 14 is hereby approved;
II. OPA 17 is modified in accordance with the textual and mapping amendments set out in the revised Omemee Secondary Plan, dated September 25, 2024, at Attachment “2” to this Order and so modified OPA 17 is hereby approved;
III. Comhold’s private Zoning By-law appeal is approved in part and the Township of Verulam Zoning By-law No. 6-87 is hereby modified in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment at Attachment “3” hereto;
IV. The Doughty Appeal is approved in part and the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
i. Policy 21.3.2 (now renumbered as 23.3.2) is to be deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Policy that reads as follows:
A. 23.3.2 Provided all applicable policies of this Plan are met, the establishment or expansion of a licensed extraction operation may be permitted as follows:
a) within the area identified on Schedule A as Aggregate or Aggregate Resource, a new licensed extraction operation or expansion of a licensed extraction operation shall be permitted subject to the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended, and if required, an amendment to the zoning by-law; or,
b) outside the area identified on Schedule A as Aggregate or Aggregate Resource, where it is demonstrated through an Official Plan Amendment that the said resource is not constrained and is of sufficient quantity and quality to warrant extraction as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Province, and the City, subject to the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, and if required, an amendment to the local zoning by-law which may be processed concurrently with the Official Plan Amendment.
B. Schedule A-3 of the Official Plan is to be modified to capture reserve deposits on and near the Appellant’s lands by redesignating those lands from “Rural” to “Aggregate Resource” as set out in the revised Schedule A-3 attached hereto as Schedule “A”.
V. All of the modifications approved herein are brought into force and effect as of the date of the Oral Ruling made on Monday, October 4, 2024;
VI. All of the Appeals pertaining to OPA 14 and OPA 17, as well as the outstanding Comhold Private Appeals and the Doughty Appeal, have been resolved through this Order; and,
VII. The Attachments which are attached to this Order shall form part of the Order.
“N. Eisazadeh”
N. eisazadeh
MEMBER
“Steven Cooke”
steven cooke
VICE-CHAIR
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.
ATTACHMENT “1” ATTACHMENT “2”
ATTACHMENT “3”