Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 13, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004723

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

Appellant(s): See Schedule 1 Subject: By-law No. 2022-053 Description: Rural Countryside Zoning By-Law Reference Number: Z-2020-03 Property Address: Town Wide Municipality/UT: Township of King/Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004723 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004723 OLT Case Name: 611428 Ontario Limited et al. v. King (Township)

Heard: January 15, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Township of King	Tom Halinski Jasmine C. M. Fraser
Multiple Appellants	Refer to Schedule 1 for Appearances by Appellants

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JANUARY 15, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the fourth Case Management Conference (“Fourth CMC”) with respect to appeals under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by a number of appellants (“Appellants”), listed in Schedule 1 to this Decision, in relation to the replacement of the Township of King’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 74-53 with Zoning By-Law No. 2022-053 (“ZBL 2022-053”). Council of the Township of King (“Township”) passed ZBL 2022-053 on September 26, 2022.

2ZBL 2022-053 is the result of the Rural Area Zoning By-law Review to: revise and update zoning standards; introduce broadened permissions for agricultural uses, including agriculture related and on-farm diversified uses to strengthen the rural economy; and to ensure the protection of environmental lands, particularly within the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

3Three Case Management Conferences (“CMC”) have taken place for this matter, on March 14, 2023 (“First CMC”), June 9, 2023 (“Second CMC”), and October 5, 2023 (“Third CMC”):

1. At the First CMC, the Tribunal confirmed that adequate Notice had been provided, and no further Notice was required.
2. At the Second CMC, the Tribunal approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, which are to govern these proceedings, and scheduled two Phased Hearings for the appeals, as follows: Phase 1 Hearing that was to take place on Monday, January 8 to Friday, January 19, 2024 (“Phase 1 Hearing”); and Phase 2 Hearing, scheduled to take place on Monday, March 11 to Friday, March 22, 2024 (“Phase 2 Hearing”). The details for each Hearing are contained in the Decision dated August 10, 2023, pertaining to the Second CMC.
3. At the Third CMC, the Tribunal was advised that two of the Appeals were to be withdrawn and a number of the Appeals had settled. Motions were scheduled to allow the Tribunal to consider these settlement agreements and approve them if warranted. Moreover, the Tribunal was advised that only Appeal 7 and 8 remained to be adjudicated at the Phase 1 Hearing.

4In advance of the Phase 1 Hearing, a request was made to adjourn Appeal 7 and a part of Appeal 8, for reasons detailed below. This request was granted by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Tribunal was advised that Appellant 8 and the Township had resolved the remaining portion of Appeal 8. As such, the Township and Appellant 8 requested that a Motion be scheduled to allow the Tribunal to consider the settlement agreement. This request was granted and a Motion in Writing was scheduled for January 9, 2024. Additionally, the Parties requested that a Fourth CMC be scheduled to allow procedural matters to be addressed, which took place on January 15, 2024.

UPDATE ON EACH APPEAL

5Each Appellant is referred to by the number it is identified as in Schedule 1.

6To date, the following Appeals have been addressed:

• Appeal 2: This Appeal was withdrawn by way of letter to the Tribunal dated December 5, 2023.
• Appeal 4: This Appeal was withdrawn by way of letter to the Tribunal dated December 5, 2023.
• Appeal 5: The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Tribunal, as confirmed in the Decision and Order dated June 7, 2023.
• Appeal 6: The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Tribunal, as confirmed in the Decision and Order dated December 5, 2023.
• Appeal 11: The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Tribunal, as confirmed in the Decision and Order dated December 11, 2023.
• Appeal 13: The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Tribunal, as confirmed in the Decision and Order dated December 6, 2023.
• Appellant 15: This appeal has been consolidated with the Appellant’s Site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval appeals before the Tribunal, under Case Nos. OLT-22-004321 and OLT-22-004322, and is being dealt with in the other proceeding.
• Appeal 17: The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Tribunal, as confirmed in the Decision and Order dated December 5, 2023.
• Un-appealed portions of ZBL 2022-053 (“Un-appealed ZBL”): Pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Act, by Order of the Tribunal in the Decision and Order dated August 1, 2023, the Un-appealed ZBL was brought into force and effect on the day that it was passed.

7The following appeals remain outstanding: Appeals 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16. Each is discussed below.

ADJOURNMENT OF APPEAL 7 AND A PORTION OF APPEAL 8

8The Township’s Counsel advised that the Township is currently in the process of conducting the Highway 11 Corridor Land Use Study (“Corridor Study”). This Corridor Study will inform decisions regarding land-use in the Corridor. It would be pre-mature for decisions to be made on sites or areas in the Corridor.

9As such, it was requested that the site-specific Appeal of Appellant 7 be adjourned until the completion of the Corridor Study and the adoption of the resultant land use framework or the submission of a development application for the pertinent lands in Appeal 7. This adjournment was granted sine die.

10With respect to Appellant 8, this Appellant and the Township requested that the Appeal in relation to the site municipally described as 20590 Highway 11, owned by 1000124547 Ontario Inc., who is one of the entities identified as Appellant 8, be adjourned sine die for the same reasons as those stated for Appeal 7, noted at paragraph [9] of this Decision.

11Upon hearing submissions from Counsel, and no other Party objecting to this request, the Tribunal granted both adjournment requests, as it appears to be the appropriate course of action in light of the issues that have been raised.

ZBL 2022-053 IN FORCE ON ALL OTHER HIGHWAY 11 CORRIDOR LANDS

12By way of letter dated November 21, 2023, Appellant 8’s Counsel advised the Tribunal that it had reached a settlement agreement with the Township. As part of the settlement, the following was agreed to:

The Minutes of Settlement also provide for the partial withdrawal of the Charing Cross Appeals, in respect of all lands not owned by our respective clients. On that basis, please accept this letter as a partial withdrawal of the Charing Cross Appeals.

Specifically, our clients are withdrawing the appeals in respect of all lands except the lands owned by our clients, being:

1. Lands municipally described as 20520 and 20550 Highway 11; and
2. Lands municipally described as 20590 Highway 11.

13At the Fourth CMC, Appellant 8’s Counsel and the Township’s Counsel confirmed this partial withdrawal and requested that, as a result of it, the Tribunal confirm that ZBL 2022-053 is in force and effect with respect to all lands in the Highway 11 Corridor, other than those that are still subject to site-specific Appeals 7 and 8.

14Upon hearing the submission of the Parties, and receiving no objections, the Tribunal agreed with this, and the Order has been made as indicated below.

WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL 9

15Counsel for Appellant 9 advised that this appeal was being withdrawn and that, subsequent to the Fourth CMC, he intended to provide the Tribunal with a letter confirming this withdrawal. The Tribunal has now received a letter from this Appellant’s Counsel, dated January 25, 2024, indicating that “Lloydtown Farms Ltd. Withdraws its appeal of the Township of King’s Rural Countryside Zoning By-law 2022-053.” As a result, this appeal is now withdrawn, and any schedules and provisions applicable to the lands subject to Appeal 9 are now in force and effect.

ADJOURNMENT OF APPEALS 3 AND 6

16With respect to these appeals, the Township’s Counsel and Appellant 3 and 6’s Counsel advised that the Parties would like to adjourn these appeals, rather than proceed to the Phase 2 Hearing. The basis for this request is that the Parties are currently engaged in discussions with the hopes of resolving all issues in dispute. Due to various factors (such as the time required for the Township’s Council to consider a settlement agreement), however, a full settlement may not be possible before March 11, 2024, the start of the Phase 2 Hearing. The adjournment would allow for continued discussions without a need to consume time or resources at a Hearing.

17Both Counsel explained that these Appeals are sufficiently distinct and distinguished from the remaining Appeals to be addressed at the Phase 2 Hearing that their separation from the other Appeals would not impact the Phase 2 Hearing, nor would it cause duplication of proceedings.

18Upon hearing the submission of the Parties, and receiving no objections from the other Parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment request. The Parties were directed to provide a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by September 16, 2024. If the Parties reach a settlement agreement prior to that date, they can request a Hearing in writing to be scheduled to consider this agreement.

REMAINING APPEALS 1, 10, 14

19With respect to the remaining appeals, the Township’s Counsel advised that discussions were ongoing, but as of this date, they were proceeding to the Phase 2 Hearing. Of note, as confirmed in the Decision dated December 6, 2023, regarding the Third CMC, a number of issues of Appellant 10, specifically those pertaining to “future use” provisions of ZBL 2022-053, are to be dealt with in Tribunal file OLT-22-003300.

20With respect to Appeals 1, 10 (partial), and 14, the Parties advised that discussions were ongoing in hopes of reaching settlement agreements. The Township’s Counsel requested, and the other Parties agreed, that the witness statement exchange date be moved from January 26, 2024 to February 2, 2024, which would allow Council to consider new information and would not adversely impact the other procedural steps to take place prior to the Phase 2 Hearing. This request was granted by the Tribunal.

21The Tribunal enquired as to whether a revised Issues List was required, but the Parties advised that the current Issues List could simply be read down, and issues that were no longer applicable could simply not be addressed at the upcoming Hearing.

22With respect to the amount of time required for the Phase 2 Hearing, the Parties agreed that it was unlikely that all the dates would be required. However, they wished to wait until after the expert meetings concluded before advising the Tribunal on whether any dates could be released. The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal at their earliest convenience regarding the release of any dates from the Tribunal’s calendar.

23Subsequent to the Fourth CMC, the Tribunal received a letter from Appellant 1’s Counsel, dated February 7, 2024, advising that, "I have instructions to withdraw my clients' appeal (Appeal No. 1: Pacifico).” As a result, this appeal is now withdrawn, and any schedules and policies applicable to the lands subject to Appeal 1 are now in force and effect.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

24The Tribunal reminded the Parties that, should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services. The Parties advised that discussions were ongoing with the aim of resolving as many issues as are possible to resolve.

ORDER

25the Tribunal Orders as follows:

a. All parts of the Township of King’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 2022-053 (“ZBL 2022-053”) with respect to lands in the Highway 11 Corridor, apart from those subject to site-specific Appeals 7 and 8, shall be deemed to have come into force on the day that the By-law was passed;

b. The Appeal submitted by Vito Pacifico, listed as Appellant 1 on Schedule 1 to this Decision, is withdrawn, and the portion of ZBL 2022-053 appealed by this Appellant shall be deemed to have come into force on the day that the By-law was passed;

c. The Appeal submitted by Lloydtown Farms Ltd., listed as Appellant 9 on Schedule 1 to this Decision, is withdrawn, and the portion of ZBL 2022-053 appealed by this Appellant shall be deemed to have come into force on the day that the By-law was passed;

d. The following Appeals are adjourned sine die:

i. The Appeal by 2731961 Ontario Inc., listed as Appellant 3 on Schedule 1 to this Decision. The Parties are to provide a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Monday, September 16, 2024;

ii. The Appeal by Len Payne, Rideau Leasing Corp., listed as Appellant 7 on Schedule 1 to this Decision;

iii. The portion of the Appeal by 1000124547 Ontario Inc., listed as Appellant 8 on Schedule 1 to this Decision, pertaining to the site municipally described as 20590 Highway 11; and

iv. The Appeal by Penwest Holdings Limited, listed as Appellant 16 on Schedule 1 to this Decision. The Parties are to provide a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Monday, September 16, 2024.

e. The witness statement exchange date indicated in the Procedural Order with respect to the Phase 2 Hearing is moved from Friday, January 26, 2024 to Friday, February 2, 2024.

26The Member may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise with the implementation of this Order.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE

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.

SCHEDULE 1

Appellant	Counsel/Representative*
1. Vito Pacifico	Milovan Prelevic
2. Robert Scheinberg and B&D Love Inc.	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
3. 2731961 Ontario Inc.	Michael Cara Daniel Artenosi (in absentia)
4. 1186675 Ontario Ltd.	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
5. Heste Corporation	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
6. Deborah and David Solomon Weis	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
7. Len Payne, Rideau Leasing Corp.	David White (in absentia)
8. Zao Wang, 84 Charing Cross International Inc. and 1000124547 Ontario Inc.	Amber Stewart Barry Horosko (in absentia)
9. Lloydtown Farms Ltd.	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
10. 611428 Ontario Limited	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)
11. Leading Edge Property Developments Inc.	David White (in absentia)
12. Intentionally left blank
13. Shawn Peebles, Northern Wide Plank Flooring Inc.	David White (in absentia)
14. Tony Nicoletti	Self-represented*
15. 2593033 Ontario Limited (c/o Weston Garden Centre)	Alex Lusty (in absentia)
16. Penwest Holdings Limited	Michael Cara Daniel Artenosi (in absentia)
17. Bill and William Bowles Harris	Steven Ferri Mandy Ng (in absentia)