Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 07, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000706
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: 611428 Ontario Limited
Appellant: Augustinian Fathers (Ontario) Inc.
Appellant: B&D Love Inc.
Appellant: William A. Harris
Subject: Zoning By-law
Description: To permit a new township-wide zoning by-law
Reference Number: Z-2024-01; By-law 2024-028
Property Address: Countryside Areas
Municipality/UT: King/York
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000706
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000706
OLT Case Name: Harris v. King (Township)
Heard: November 01, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
611428 Ontario Limited, B&D Love Inc. and William A. Harris
Austin Ray Steven Ferri (in absentia)
Augustinian Fathers (Ontario) Inc. Township of King Concerned Citizens of King Township and Save The Oak Ridges Moraine
Jenna Morley Tom Halinski David Donnelly
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH ON NOVEMBER 1, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened on the respective appeals filed by four separate Appellants – 611428 Ontario Limited (“611 Ontario”), B&D Love Inc. (“B&D”), and William A. Harris (”Harris”), represented by Counsel, Steven Ferri, and Augustinian Fathers (Ontario) Inc. (“AFOI”) represented by Counsel, Jenna Morley (collectively the “Appellants” and/or the “Appeals”) – against the passing of Zoning By-Law 24-028 (“ZBA”) by the Township of King (“Township”), represented by Counsel, Tom Halinski, under section(“s.”) 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).
2The purpose of the Township-initiated ZBA is to enact “housekeeping changes” to the parent Countryside By-Law 2022-053 (“Countryside By-law”) by making corrections, clarifying provisions, and introducing new provisions to ensure conformity with the King Official Plan, and is applicable over eighty percent of the geographic area of the Township including the Hamlets of Ansnorveldt, Graham Sideroad, Kettleby, Laskay, Lloydtown, Pottageville and Snowball. The ZBA also applies to the Township’s agricultural areas, including prime agricultural areas and the Holland Marsh Specialty Crop Area, the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt, portions of the Natural Core, Linkage and Countryside areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Nobleton Village Reserve.
3The Appellant, 611 Ontario, is the owner of the lands municipally known as 4670 18th Sideroad, in the Hamlet of Pottageville, within the Township.
4The Appellant, B&D, is the owner of the lands municipally known as 1265 and 1405 19th Sideroad in the Township.
5The Appellant, Harris, is the owner of the lands municipally known as 12740 and 12745 Mill Road in the Township.
6The Appellant, AFOI, is the owner of the lands municipally known as 13760 Keele Street, located in the Countryside designation within the Township.
7The ZBA encompasses each of the subject lands owned by the four Appellants as set out at paragraphs [3] to [6] above. While the AFOI Appeal pertains solely to its own lands, the other three Appeals regard the entirety of the Township’s ZBA.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
8The Tribunal entered into evidence the Affidavit of Service of Natalie Hickey sworn on October 9, 2024, marked as Exhibit 1, and was satisfied that same demonstrates proper Notice of the present CMC.
CATEGORIES OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL
9Mr. Halinski provided a succinct overview of the four Appeals which the Parties agree have significant overlap with respect to their grounds of appeal. As submitted by Mr. Halinski, the Parties agree that the grounds for the present Appeals can be organized into three main categories, as follows.
10The first category regards minor site-specific corrections, or clarifications in respect of the 611 Ontario and Harris Appeals, for consistency with the parent Countryside By-Law. It regards mainly “tweaks” or clarifications to language and provisions which discrepancies the Parties expect they can resolve on their own either through mapping corrections or clarifying language. With additional time, the Parties expect that they may be in a position to bring forward a resolution by way of Settlement Motion without the need for a Hearing on the merits.
11The second category regards the provisions permitting development or site alteration in Natural Heritage features if it can be demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact to the integrity of the Greenbelt Plan area which relates to s. 16(c) of the ZBA. Mr. Halinski submitted that this closely resembles and overlaps with a parallel provision in a separate proceeding before this Tribunal known as the Pompilio appeal bearing OLT Case File No. 23-000213. The Pompilio matter appeals the amendment to ZBL 2023-012 for the Urban Areas of King and Schomberg within the Township. Mr. Ferri also represents the appellants in the Pompilio matter, in which a motion was recently argued seeking direction regarding whether there is jurisdiction under the Act to adopt the challenged provisions of the amendments. That Decision is currently the subject of a review application under s. 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and is pending final determination on the jurisdictional issue (the “Pompilio Review”).
12The Parties are agreed that in the interests of consistency and efficiency, the grounds under this second category of Appeals are best deferred until the outcome of the Pompilio Review and any potential further appeals arising therefrom. On behalf of the Parties, Mr. Halinski proposed to update the Tribunal on the present Appeals once a determination has been made on the Pompilio Review, as the Parties expect that the Pompilio Decision will resolve this second category of Appeals, likely in their entirety.
13The third category regards properties that do not front onto public streets. On this category, it appears the Township and the Appellants diverge with respect to their positions. Mr. Halinski submitted that this third category of Appeals should be treated in the same fashion as the second category referred to above, in that it should be deferred until the outcome of the Pompilio Review which may resolve, dispose or narrow the issues in dispute. Mr. Ferri is currently considering and seeking instructions from his client on this point. Either way, the Parties are not in a position to set this category of Appeals down for hearing at this time; and, collectively for the reasons set out above regarding the first and second categories of Appeals, propose to address all matters at a second CMC requested by all Parties on consent.
14Mr. Halinski added that there is a fourth category which encompasses everything else in the “housekeeping changes” to the parent Countryside By-Law. He stated that there are a substantial number of provisions in the ZBA, as is typical with any such amendment to a parent By-Law, which are all encapsulated by the three Appeals as the three Appeals are against the entirety of the ZBL. However, the grounds of appeal on these three Appeals do not take issue with the “miscellaneous” provisions. The Township would like to see these uncontested provisions in force as soon as possible to provide consistency and clarity for all stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the Township would request that the Appellants scope their Appeals to only those provisions actually in issue and preferably in reference to only their own respective lands. Mr. Ferri on behalf of those three Appellants is seeking instructions and expects to respond in due course to Mr. Halinski respecting this request. The Parties expect that they can further work cooperatively to scope the issues in dispute in the manner of a consent proposal, or if necessary, will contemplate any necessary motion(s) which can be raised and addressed at a second CMC.
15The Tribunal endorsed the approach of the Parties as to the organization of these Appeals and the Parties’ agreed proposal with respect to scheduling a second CMC as the most reasonable and efficient path to move these matters forward. A second CMC was therefore scheduled, returnable Wednesday, December 4, 2024, the details of which are set out in paragraphs [23] to [26] below.
16Mr. Halinski was directed to kindly provide the Tribunal with a Status Update one-week in advance of the second CMC, by Wednesday, November 27, 2024, to advise if further time would be required to address any of the items referred to above and to propose an agenda of the matters that could be expected to be addressed at the next event.
17Should the Parties reach resolution in respect of the first category of Appeals (the 611 Ontario and Harris Appeals) prior to the second CMC, they may contact the Case Coordinator to seek dates for either a written or virtual motion.
STATUS REQUESTS
18The Tribunal received two Party Status requests by way of a Party Status Request Form dated October 31, 2024. The first is from Concerned Citizens of King Township (“CCKT”). The second is from Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (“STORM”). Both organizations are represented by Counsel, David Donnelly, who submits that both organizations are seeking Party Status but will act as a coalition to reduce duplication of issues, evidence and submissions.
19Mr. Halinski advised that he did not expect to oppose Mr. Donnelly’s request for Party Status on behalf of his client, though did not have those instructions. He stated it might be in the interests of efficiency to deal with that request at the second CMC, when the Parties would have a better idea of what issues were left in dispute for Mr. Donnelly’s clients to seek Status on.
20Mr. Ferri advised that his clients would be opposing Mr. Donnelly’s requests for Status, and that he would be deferring to submissions which would be made by Ms. Morley for the Appellants. There was some confusion and discussion as to which grounds of Appeal and issues Mr. Donnelly’s clients would be seeking to shelter under. While Mr. Donnelly preferred to deal with the Status requests at present, referring to a 10-page covering letter containing his submissions, he also recognized that the letter and his Status Request Forms were not submitted within the standard 10 days before the present CMC. He submitted that the objections and submissions as to his request could be dealt with at the second CMC.
21The Tribunal endorsed this approach and directed that in advance of the second CMC the Parties cooperate and communicate with one another to scope the issues regarding the submissions to be made, both in seeking and opposing Mr. Donnelly’s Party Status requests on behalf of his clients.
22Neither the Parties nor the Tribunal received any further requests for Party or Participant Status.
SECOND CMC
23A second CMC date is scheduled to be held by videoconference on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, commencing at 10 a.m.
GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/357283957
Access Code: 357-283-957
24Individuals 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.
25Individuals 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) 1 888 455 1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated in paragraph [23], above.
26Individuals 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 Hearing 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.
27The Tribunal directs that the Parties file a Status Update with the Tribunal by Wednesday, November 27, 2024.
ORDER
28A second CMC date is scheduled to be held by videoconference on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, commencing at 10 a.m.
29This Member is not seized.
30There will be no further notice.
“N. Eisazadeh”
n. eisazadeh
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.