Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000524

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Ganni Properties Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a one-storey restaurant with drive-through service facility, and two retail/commercial units Reference Number: POPA 2019-0007 Property Address: 16054,16060 and 16068 Airport Road Municipality/UT: Town of Caledon OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000524 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000524 OLT Case Name: Ganni Properties Inc. v. Caledon (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Ganni Properties Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a one-storey restaurant with drive-through service facility, and two retail/commercial units Reference Number: R2 2019-0010 Property Address: 16054,16060 and 16068 Airport Road Municipality/UT: Town of Caledon OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000525 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000524

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Ganni Properties Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a one-storey restaurant with drive-through service facility, and two retail/commercial units Reference Number: SPA 2019-0066 Property Address: 16054,16060 and 16068 Airport Road Municipality/UT: Town of Caledon OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000526 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000524

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

Request by: Ganni Properties Inc. Request for: Request for Directions

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

Request by: Town of Caledon Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: October 3, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Ganni Properties Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant")	John Alati, Samantha Lampert
Town of Caledon ("Town")	Sylvain Rouleau, Chantal de Sereville

DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM AND L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from the hearing of a Notice of Motion for Direction brought by the Applicant/Appellant, and a Notice of Motion by the Town pursuant to section 19(1)(d) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6 and section 4.6(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. The Parties also submitted Responses to the Notices of Motion.

BACKGROUND

2The Applicant/Appellant owns the lands municipally known as 16054,16060, and 16068 Airport Road in the Town (together referred to as "Subject Lands") and submitted concurrent applications to amend the Town's Official Plan ("OPA"), Zoning By-law ("ZBA"), and Site Plan ("SPA") in June 2022. The initial applications sought to construct a Tim Horton's Restaurant with drive-through service at 16054 and 16060 Airport Road. The final proposal includes two standalone retail/commercial units in a separate building, in addition to the drive-through restaurant with the addition of the land at 16068. The Town failed to decide on any of the three applications within the period specified in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and the Applicant/Appellant filed appeals with the Tribunal (respectively, "OPA Appeal", "ZBA Appeal", and "SPA Appeal").

3The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order ("PO") in April 2024 to guide the hearing process. Subsequently, the Town passed Designating By-law Nos. 2024-046 and 2024-047 pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ("OHA"), which applied the heritage designation to 16054 and 16060 Airport Road. The Applicant/Appellant filed an appeal of the Designating By-laws on July 31, 2024, with the Tribunal ("Heritage Appeal"). It was the Applicant/Appellant's intention that the Heritage Appeal be heard together with the OPA Appeal, ZBA Appeal, and the SPA Appeal, and the Town has indicated agreement with this approach.

MOTION HEARING

4The Applicant/Appellant's Notice of Motion seeks the following relief:

1. Hear the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal together with the Heritage Appeal, and separate and defer the SPA Appeal from these Appeals.
2. Strike and/or modify Issues two, three, four, and seven (in part), from the Issues List by the Town, dated September 12, 2024, on the basis that they are irrelevant and/or otherwise improper.
3. Defer witness statements to no sooner than 10 days following the Tribunal's decision on this Motion and adjust the other dates accordingly.
4. Be awarded costs arising from the bringing of this Motion.

5The Town's Notice of Motion seeks the following relief:

1. Strike Issues 24 (second half), 26, 27, 29, and 30 from the Issue List attached to Town's Motion Record (Exhibit 2), as the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to grant.
2. Modify or Strike an issue related to the Heritage Impact Assessment.
3. Compel the Applicant/Appellant to produce witness statements related to the Heritage Impact Assessment and an updated Archeological Assessment.
4. Permit the Town to add issues related to specific sections of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Town Official Plan.
5. Be awarded costs of bringing this Motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

Materials

6The materials before the Tribunal on the Motions are:

1. Exhibit 1: Ganni Properties Inc. Motion Record for Motion for Directions
2. Exhibit 2: Town of Caledon Motion Record
3. Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Service of Ganni Properties Inc. Motion Record
4. Exhibit 4: Affidavit of Service for the Town of Caledon's Motion Record
5. Exhibit 5: Town of Caledon Response to Motion
6. Exhibit 6: Ganni Properties Inc. Response to Motion
7. Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Service of Ganni Properties Inc. for Response to Motion
8. Exhibit 8: Affidavit of Service for the Town of Caledon For Response to Motion
9. Exhibit 9: Air Photo
10. Exhibit 10: Context Air Photo
11. Exhibit 11: Street View Photos
12. Exhibit 12: Ganni Properties Inc. Book of Authorities
13. Exhibit 13: Town of Caledon Book of Authorities

Affidavits

7The Applicant/Appellant included sworn affidavits and expert duty forms for Michael Vani (Exhibits 1 and 7), who is a registered professional planner, and Christienne Uchiyama (Exhibit 6), who is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and is a licensed archaeologist in the Province of Ontario.

8The Town included sworn affidavits and expert duty forms for Nancy Frieday (Exhibits 2 and 5), who is a registered professional planner, and Sarah Drummond (Exhibit 2), who is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and is the senior heritage planner for the Town.

Resolution of Motion Items

9The Parties indicated at the beginning of the Hearing that several issues listed in the Notice of Motion documents have been resolved. In considering the submissions of the Parties regarding these matters, the Tribunal granted oral approval of the following:

1. Witness statements are to be filed no sooner than 10 days following the issuance of this Decision.
2. The Parties may adjust the pre-filing dates as listed within the PO, including but not limited to the time of the filing of Reply witness statements and the provision of Visual Evidence, in accordance with the postponement of the filing of witness statements.
3. Production and sharing of reports issues have been resolved specifically related to heritage and archeology at the Subject Lands.
4. All issues agreed to by the Parties are approved.
5. Removal of the following policies from the Town's Issues List: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; Policy 1.7.1 k); Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, Policy 2.9.1 (d) and (e); and, Policies 5.9.5.3, 5.9.5.3.1, 5.9.5.3.2, 5.9.5.8.1, 5.9.5.8.3, 5.9.5.8.4, 7.7.9.1, 7.7.9.5 and 7.7.14.1 of the Town's Official Plan.

10The Tribunal, on consent of the Parties and the submissions and evidence received, grants the consolidation of the Heritage Appeal with the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal.

Applicant/Appellant Unresolved Motion Issues

Deferral of Site Plan Application Appeal Hearing

11Despite originally submitting the SPA Appeal concurrently with the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal, the Applicant/Appellant now contends that it should be separated as the technical details of a Site Plan should be separated from "the threshold matters pertaining to the principle of development on the Subject Lands" and be decided before a hearing about the details of the development proposal occurs. Additionally, the following grounds were submitted:

• Disagreement with the Town on the heritage character of the structures located on 16054 and 16060 Airport Road, and whether they can be demolished and the overall appropriateness of a drive-through facility.
• There is no merit in the Town's position that there is "real risk of overlap, duplication, and inefficiency" if the SPA Appeal is deferred. The Applicant/Appellant submits that deferring the SPA Appeal sine die offers the best opportunity for an expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceeding.
• It is not unusual to separate a SPA Appeal from an OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal, and there is nothing about this situation to require them to be heard together.
• Adjournment or deferral of the SPA would "significantly scope" the issues as a number could be eliminated given that they are not connected to the "principle of development and are primarily technical details."
• The Applicant/Appellant is entitled to determine the case that it puts forward, subject to the acknowledgement from the Tribunal. It is not the place of the municipality.

12In opposition to the Motion, the Town submits that it is necessary to hear the SPA Appeal with the other Appeals for the following reasons:

• The Site Plan issues are directly relevant to the planning merits of the proposed use as there is not enough space on the Subject Lands to accommodate the drive-through proposal. The Town submits that concerns with the Site Plan related to vegetation removal, insufficient landscaping, and the construction of a noise wall, in addition to other potential concerns with traffic flow, are directly relevant in determining the proposals conformity with specific sections of the Town's Official Plan.
• The Site Plan is not something that can be worked out later as the proposal cannot meet the basic Site Plan requirements and still be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding context. The Town submits that there will have to be a hearing regarding the Site Plan given the "fundamental problems" accommodating a drive-through on the Subject Lands. The Town submits that hearing the Appeals together is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the Applicant/Appellant's proposed land use.
• It is the most efficient use of the Tribunal's resources as the three Appeals will share issues and evidence, the Site Plan drawings will still be before the Tribunal as part of the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal proceedings, and the Town will be calling on the same expert witnesses.
• Issues related to such items as 'snow removal' and 'turning radii' on the Subjects Lands are critical issues to establishing that the Subject Lands cannot adequately accommodate the basic functions required for the proposed use.
• The Tribunal often hears appeals together, and in this case, it will be the same Parties, common evidence, and involving the same proposed development. The Town also submits that there is much greater risk of duplicating evidence and having inconsistent findings if the Appeals are separated.

13The Tribunal has given due regard and consideration to the submissions and arguments of counsel, examined the expert planning opinions and materials provided, and reviewed the case authorities provided. In considering all the information before it, the Tribunal denies the request to separate the SPA Appeal from the other Appeals pertaining to the Subject Lands for the reasons outlined below.

14In this case, it is not simply a matter of resolving technical issues in finalizing a site plan for the Subject Lands but a case where the Parties are far apart in determining the future use of the Subject Lands and the planning issues extend across the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Heritage Designating By-laws which requires a holistic adjudication of the development proposal dispute.

15The Tribunal prefers planner Frieday's analysis on this matter, which opines that "attention to detail" is especially critical in this instance as she identifies various sections of the Town's Official Plan that refer to site specific requirements for a drive-through and Section 7.7 of the Secondary Plan, which states that "drive-through facilities are not permitted in the General Commercial designation." In contrast, planner Vani (for the Applicant/Appellant) opines that the issues raised by the Town are "generic site plan issues."

16The Tribunal also prefers planner Frieday's opinion that the drive-through use is the most significant factor in considering the proposed development, given its impact on numerous Site Plan design requirements, as outlined in her affidavit (Exhibit 5). She opines that "these issues…inform land use compatibility, preservation of character and the appropriateness of the use" and should be considered with the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal.

17The Tribunal finds the Toronto (City) Interim Control By-law No. 1431-2013, Re, 2014 CarswellOnt 11217, 28 M.P.L.R. (5th) 142, 81 O.M.B.R. 178 (OMB) decision applicable in considering this request in its reference to the question of "whether or not the use of the subject lands… should be permitted at all." The Tribunal finds "that at least one issue, relating to land use compatibility, will not only be common but central" and applicable in this case as well (Exhibit 13).

18The Tribunal finds that the Appeals together recognize the connection between the proposed use and the design elements within a site plan, and creates the best opportunity for an efficient, consistent, cost-effective process, where evidence can be heard once for the Subject Lands.

Adjournment and Removal of Issues

19A PO was approved by the Tribunal in April 2024, with the consent of the Parties. Following the issuance of the Tribunal's Decision on April 10, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant launched its Heritage Appeal of the Heritage Designating By-laws passed by the Town concerning lots 16054 and 16060 on Airport Road.

20In August 2024, the Tribunal directed the Parties to provide an updated Issues List, which was provided in September 2024 (Exhibit 2). The updated Issues List included 21 Issues from the Town and nine Issues from the Applicant/Appellant (Exhibit 2) all arising from the Heritage Designating decision of the Town.

21On behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, planner Vani proffers that issues related to Site Plan design (Issues 10 to 20) should be adjourned and considered at a later date, following the resolution of the development permissions for the Subject Lands, and that other specific policies referenced in Issues two, three, four, and seven (in part) be struck completely as planner Vani opines that they are "irrelevant to the matters at hand and/or are intended to be items for the Town to take action on."

22In contrast, planner Frieday, on behalf of the Town, proffers that issues concerning the Site Plan are required as they relate to the "minimal land area available and the ability to accommodate/address other requirements given the land area devoted to the drive-through use." Planner Frieday opines that these issues inform land use "compatibility, preservation of character and the appropriateness of the use."

23Regarding the request to strike issues, Counsel for the Town submitted that development applications are required to conform to policies that are aimed at Town action and referred the Tribunal to the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, Goldlist Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2003 CanLII 50084 (ON CA), 2003 CarswellOnt 3965, [2003] O.J. No. 3931 (ONCA) at para 49, and 2222868 Ontario Inc. v. Grimsby (Town), 2020 ONCA 376 at para 32, which stated that the purpose of an official plan "is to set out a framework of 'goals, objectives, and policies' to shape planning decisions" (Exhibit 5).

24Planner Frieday opines that the policies related to the environment, transportation, cultural heritage, landscape, and streetscape are relevant to the Town meeting the goals of its planning tools and need to be considered with planning appeals.

25Given the decision above to hear the SPA Appeal with the OPA Appeal and ZBA Appeal, the Tribunal denies the request to adjourn or strike issues as requested by the Applicant/Appellant.

26The Tribunal prefers the submissions of Counsel for the Town and concurs with the opinion of planner Frieday regarding the request to adjourn and strike issues. The Tribunal finds that the topics these issues address are clearly relevant to the proposed use, and in turn, the proposed Site Plan.

27The Tribunal looks to the PO, which indicates that:

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the way it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Town's Motions

Strike Issues for Relief that the Tribunal Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant

28The Town submits that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine how the existing buildings on the Subject Lands may be dealt with if the Heritage Designating By-laws are upheld, and therefore, the second half of Issue 24 and Issues 26, 27, and 29 should be removed as Issues. The Town contends that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction on this matter if an appeal of a Town decision has been launched, and in this case, the Applicant/Appellant has not made a heritage demolition application. The Town submits that the Tribunal, in these proceedings, only has the jurisdiction to make decisions related to the OPA Appeal, ZBA Appeal, SPA Appeal, and Heritage Appeal.

29The Town also submitted that Issue 22 be struck, unless the following modification is granted:

In the event that the Designation By-law is not upheld, has the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by LHC demonstrated that the cultural heritage value or interest of cultural heritage resources can be adequately conserved through the development proposal? [Emphasis added]

30The Town submits that the Applicant/Appellant has no right to appeal issues involving actions that require a heritage permit application granted by Town Council, as per sections 33 or 34 of the OHA. The Town contends that the right to appeal for a non-decision of Town Council on a heritage permit is not an established right, and an appeal may only be launched following a decision of the Town Council.

31The Applicant/Appellant opposes this Motion and submits that these issues are Planning Act related and are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the following grounds:

• The Applicant/Appellant did not have the ability to legally file for a heritage demolition permit given the Heritage Appeal process is underway.
• It is appropriate to determine what can be done with heritage resources as part of an OPA and ZBA process given the Town's approximate four-year delay in designating the Subject Lands in June 2024 from their initial placement on the Town's Heritage Register List in September 2019.
• The Tribunal has the authority to withhold its Final Order on the Planning Act Appeals, subject to various conditions that could be imposed, which require Town approval, such as confirmation that a site plan has been finalized, and in this case, that a heritage demolition permit has been issued.
• It is the best use of the Tribunal's time and resources to deal with every possible outcome and issue related to the Subject Lands when the Tribunal is already dealing with an OPA and a ZBA to determine if a drive-through is an appropriate use.
• It is inappropriate to separate a decision on demolition of the buildings given that this has always been contemplated with the planning applications and is an important component of the principle of development at issue.
• The Town has included an issue related to the impact on the structures on the Subject Lands (Issue 9, September Issues List), which would require the same kind of evidence required for the Issues they are requesting be removed.

32The Applicant/Appellant submitted a Revised Issues List, which proposes removing half of Issue 24 and Issue 26, and moving Issues 22, 27, 29, and 30 as sub-issues under Issue 9 (Exhibit 6).

33The Tribunal notes that there is no dispute between the Parties as to the authority of the Tribunal to add or strike issues from a PO.

34Regarding the ability to initiate a heritage demolition permit, the Tribunal heard submissions from both Parties outlining ways in which an application could have been initiated, and reasons, beyond legal requirements, why it was not. The Tribunal is not convinced the decision not to apply was based on provincial and/or municipal regulations prohibiting it.

35The matter at hand is whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction, as part of these proceedings to rule on issues related to the alteration, or demolition, of the buildings on the Subject Lands, in the case where the Heritage Designating By-laws are upheld.

36In considering the submissions and evidence submitted related to this Motion, the Tribunal concurs with the Town and finds that it has no jurisdiction in determining the potential outcomes for the buildings on the Subject Lands and finds that it would be premature until such time as the appeals before the Tribunal are determined and a heritage demolition permit application has been initiated and a decision made by Town Council.

37The Tribunal refers to sections 33 and 34 of the OHA for guidance in this matter and given that the Town has not received or made a ruling on a heritage permit application, it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at this time. Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA expressly require an application to the Town requesting any alteration or demolition of a building designated under section 29 of the OHA and the applicant must receive "consent in writing" to permit the changes requested.

38The Tribunal finds that the issues related to a potential heritage permit application can be dealt with separately from a hearing for the OPA Appeal, ZBA Appeal, SPA Appeal and Heritage Appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal directs that the second half of Issue 24, and Issues 26, 27, 29, and 30 be removed from the September Issues List. Issue 24 will appear as follows:

24. Does the Pettigrew House (16054 Airport Road) retain sufficient heritage integrity to warrant its designation?

39Regarding the modification of Issue 22, the Tribunal grants this request, and it shall read:

Issue 22

In the event that the Designation By-law is not upheld, has the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by LHC demonstrated that the cultural heritage value or interest of cultural heritage resources can be adequately conserved through the development proposal?

Addition of Issues

40The Town's Notice of Motion also requested relief to add two issues:

1. Does the proposed development conform with sections 18, 19(3), 27(3), 31(4), 45 (2), and (3) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ("ORMCP")?
2. Does the proposed development confirm with sections 7.10.5.3.7, 7.10.6.8.2, 7.10.6.8.3, and 7.10.6.8.4 of the Town's Official Plan?

41The Town submitted that these issues should be added based on the requirement for any decision under the Planning Act being made by the Tribunal "shall conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan" (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 31, s. 7(1)) and that municipal by-laws must conform with applicable official plans, as required by section 24 of the Planning Act.

42The Town argued that the Applicant/Appellant will suffer no prejudice with this addition as there are other issues related to the Conservation Authority in the current list and witness statements have not yet been exchanged, given the direction of the Tribunal in September 2024 that witness statements are not due until 10 days following finalization of the Issues List.

43The Parties do not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction to add issues, and the Applicant/Appellant referred to Rule 1.6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, with emphasis on the reference in Rule 1.6 to "necessary and appropriate".

44The Applicant/Appellant submits that the additional issues are not necessary or appropriate and contends that they have no relevance to the principle issues in the Planning Act Appeals, that the Town has had ample time to add these issues, and that they have not indicated any concern with the applications conforming with the ORMCP since the process began.

45The Tribunal, having determined that the SPA Appeal will be heard with the other Planning Act Appeals (see paragraph [13] above), and in considering the expert affidavits provided, approves the addition of Issue one, in part, and Issue two, in its entirety, to the Issues List submitted in September 2024:

1. Does the proposed development conform with sections 27(3), 45 (2), and (3) of the ORMCP?
2. Does the proposed development conform with sections 7.10.5.3.7, 7.10.6.8.2, 7.10.6.8.3, and 7.10.6.8.4 of the Town's Official Plan?

46The Tribunal grants the addition of these two Issues given the decision to hear the SPA Appeal with the other Planning Act Appeals, the requirement to conform with the ORMCP, and that the list already includes issues related to conformity with the ORMCP.

47The Tribunal concurs with planner Vani that sections 18, 19(3), and 31(4) of the ORMCP do not directly provide policy direction to the proposed development, and therefore have been removed from the Town's issue request.

DIRECTIONS

48The Tribunal directs the Parties to update the PO to reflect the directions provided within this Decision and Order, and to address the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 ("PPS 2024"), where appropriate, which came into effect on October 20, 2024.

49If there are other matters associated with PPS 2024 in this case that need to be addressed, the Tribunal requests that the Parties indicate their positions within seven days of the issuance of this Decision so that the Tribunal can consider next steps.

50The updated draft Procedural Order shall be submitted to the Tribunal within seven days of the issuance of this Decision.

51The Tribunal directs that the Parties shall bear their own costs of the Motions.

ORDER

52UPON MOTION to the Tribunal by Ganni Properties Inc. for Directions and after the hearing of the Motion,

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion for Directions brought by Ganni Properties Inc. is granted in part, and the Tribunal provides the following Directions for the purposes of this appeal before the Tribunal:

1. The request to adjourn or defer the hearing of the Site Plan Appeal is denied.
2. The Heritage Appeal be heard together with the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Appeals.
3. Deferral of witness statements to 10 days following the issuance of this Decision.
4. Pre-filing dates including and not limited to the Reply witness statements and the provision of visual evidence may be adjusted, as listed within the Procedural Order, and in accordance with the postponement of the filing of witness statements.
5. Ganni Properties Inc. shall bear their own costs of the Motion.

54UPON MOTION to the Tribunal by the Town of Caledon and after the hearing of the Motion,

55THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion brought by the Town of Caledon is granted in part, and the Tribunal provides the following Directions for the purposes of this appeal before the Tribunal:

1. Issues 26, 27, 29, and 30 be removed from the September Issues List and Issues 22 and 24 shall read as follows:
   22. In the event that the Designation By-law is not upheld, has the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by LHC demonstrated that the cultural heritage value or interest of cultural heritage resources can be adequately conserved through the development proposal?
   23. Does the Pettigrew House (16054 Airport Road) retain sufficient heritage integrity to warrant its designation?
2. The addition of the requested issues is allowed in part and as follows: Does the proposed development conform with sections 27(3), 45 (2), and (3) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan? Does the proposed development conform with sections 7.10.5.3.7, 7.10.6.8.2, 7.10.6.8.3, and 7.10.6.8.4 of the Town of Caledon's Official Plan?
3. The Town shall bear their own costs of the Motion.

56Case Management directions set out in the body of the decision are so ordered.

"Gregory J. Ingram" GREGORY J. INGRAM MEMBER

"L.P. You" L.P You MEMBER

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.