Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004770
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 375 Kingston Road Corp.
Appellant: Director Industrial Holdings
Appellant: Emix Ltd.
Appellant: Old Orchard Kingston Rd GP Inc.
Appellant: Rosebank & Kingston Holdings Inc
Appellant: Tribute (Brookdale) Limited
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit redevelopment and intensification of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
Property Address: City-wide OPA
Municipality/UT: Region of Durham
Reference Number: OPA 20-004/P
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004770
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004770
OLT Case Name: 375 Kingston Road Corp. v. Durham (Region)
Heard: November 27, 2024 in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
375 Kingston Road Corporation
Aarron Platt
Director Industrial Holdings Limited
Christopher Tanzola
Emix Ltd.
Ian Andres
Old Orchard Kingston Road GP Inc.
Max Laskin, Ian Andres
Tribute (Brookdale) Limited
Signe Leisk, Andrianna Pilkington
Rosebank & Kingston Holdings Inc. & 1409 Rosebank Road Holdings Inc.
John Alati, Grace O’Brien
705 Kingston Road Ltd.
Ian Andres
Pickering Ridge Lands Inc.
Aaron Platt
City of Pickering
Quinto M. Annibale, J. Mark Joblin, Alexandra White
Region of Durham
Samantha Whalen, Adam Patel
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was a Motion by the City of Pickering (“City”) requesting that the Tribunal approve parts of the City’s Official Plan Amendment Number 38 (“OPA 38”) that are not under site-specific Appeals by the above noted Appellants and Parties pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act (“Act”), (the “Motion”).
2In accordance with the Tribunal’s directions provided on November 6, 2024, and in accordance with Rule 10.3 of Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Motion was to be heard in writing.
BACKGROUND
3On January 24, 2022, the City approved OPA 38. The Purpose of OPA 38 was to add new polices and update the existing polices and the land use designations to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) which would permit the redevelopment of the area of the City known as the “Kingston Road Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Area”.
4OPA 38 specifically applies to the properties that are bound by:
a. On the north and south sides of Kingston Road between the Rouge National Urban Park in the west, Pine Creek to the east (inclusive of 1340 Rougemount Drive; 1409 Rosebank Road; 1460, 1467, 1475 Whites Road; 944, 950, 975 Merritton Road; 4 Evelyn Avenue; 1101A, 1105 and 1163 Kingston Road; 1099 and 1101 Dixie Road);
b. On the north side of Kingston Road, east of Diana Princess of Wales Park and extending easterly up to and including the Durham Regional Police Service property at 1710 Kingston Road; and,
c. On the east side of Brock Road, north of Highway 401 and south of Kingston Road, which comprises the “Specialty Retailing Node” in the Plan, and 1709 Kingston Road.
5On October 31, 2022, the Region of Durham (“Region”) issued its approval of OPA 38 with modifications. These modifications inter alia included:
a. Adding new population and job targets for the year 2041 for the Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas in Chapter 2 – South Pickering Urban Area in Part 1 of the Plan;
b. Revising the Mixed-Use Areas policies in Chapter 3 – Land Use in part 2 of the Plan, including:
i. Deleting the policies pertaining to the “Specialty Retailing Node” designation;
ii. Revising Table 4: Relationship between Regional Official Plan and Pickering Official Plan Mixed Use Areas;
iii. Revising Table 5: Mixed Use Areas: Permissible Uses by Subcategory;
iv. Revising Table 6: Mixed Use Areas: Densities and Floor Areas by Subcategory;
iv.
c. Revising Schedule I – Land Use Structure, to replace the “Specialty Retailing Node” designation with a “Brock Mixed Node” designation;
d. Adding a new Chapter 11A – Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Area and associated detailed policies for the areas on matters including:
Placemaking
Gateways
Precinct Specific Policies
Cultural Heritage
Sustainability and Climate Resiliency
General land use policies
New land use designations (Mixed Use A, Mixed Use B, Mixed Use C, Residential, Community Use, Natural Areas, Public Parks)
Built Form, Building Heights and Transition
Public Realm
Mobility (Pedestrian and Cycling Network, Transit, Streets, Parking)
Servicing
Stormwater Management
Implementation and Transition
e. Adding a new Schedule XIV Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas with land use designations for the Intensification Areas.
6Following the Region’s modified approval of OPA 38, the Appellants filed their appeals within the statutory timelines as per s. 17(36) of the Act.
7The Tribunal held two Case Management Conferences (“CMCs”) prior to the written Motion before it. The intent of the CMCs were to approve the Appellants and Parties and to scope the issues that were to be heard before the Tribunal. Due to this scoping of the issues, the Appellants and Parties agreed that each of their issues with OPA 38 were site-specific, meaning that OPA 38 could be partially approved by the Tribunal. The lands held by the Appellants and Parties would not be included in this approval process.
8The Tribunal has the authority under s. 17(50) of the Act to approve all or a portion of a plan. Section 17(50) stipulates:
On an appeal or a transfer under this section, the Tribunal may approve all or part of the plan as all or part of an official plan, make modifications to all or part of the plan and approve all or part of the plan as modified as an official plan or refuse to approve all or part of the plan.
MOTION HEARING
9The City provided Motion materials to the Tribunal including its Notice of Motion, the Affidavit of Déan Jacobs – the Manager of Policy & Geomatics at the City of Pickering – and supporting materials including a draft Order for the Tribunal. The Tribunal marked the Notice of Motion as Exhibit 1 to the hearing event.
10The Tribunal notes that all the Parties had received proper Notice concerning the Motion and no other materials were received by the Tribunal concerning the City’s Motion.
11The Tribunal had reviewed the materials before it and qualified Mr. Jacobs as an expert in the area of land use planning and Mr. Jacobs was entitled to give expert opinion evidence hereto on the matter before the Tribunal.
Affidavit Evidence
12It was Mr. Jacobs’s opinion that OPA 38 was consistent with the previous provincial plans and policies which included the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”). The PPS 2020 directs intensification and development to occur in settlement areas that will promote an efficient form of development that is transit-supportive and optimizes the use of the land and public infrastructure. It was Mr. Jacobs’ opinion that OPA 38 is consistent with these objectives of the PPS 2020.
13Concerning the Growth Plan, Mr. Jacobs opined that OPA 38 conforms with the Growth Plan. The Growth Plan prioritizes intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas which include locally defined nodes and corridors that growth in areas that can be supported by public transit. Mr. Jacobs opined that OPA 38 does conform to the objectives and goals of the Growth Plan.
14On October 20, 2024, the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS 2024”) came into affect, which replaced the PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan. In Mr. Jacobs’s opinion, the PPS 2024 stipulates that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Land use patterns should be based on a mix of densities and a mix of land uses which optimize existing and planned infrastructure; are transit supportive; and freight supportive where appropriate. Mr. Jacobs continued to opine that planning authorities are directed to support intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities which include a range of housing options. It was Mr. Jacobs’s opinion that OPA 38 conforms to the new PPS 2024 as OPA 38 will allow for appropriate forms of intensification to occur in areas that are within an area deemed to need intensification and will be transit supportive.
15In Mr. Jacobs’ opinion, OPA 38 conforms to the new Durham Regional Official Plan (“Region OP”) as OPA 38 will support the planning and development of complete communicates within OPA 38. The development within OPA 38 will be of intense, compact forms, which will be both pedestrian-oriented and will make use of public transit.
16OPA 38 is located within a “Rapid Transit Corridor” within the Region’s OP. Kinston Road is identified as one of the most significant transit corridors within Durham Region and needs to be developed to its full potential. OPA 38 is one of the planning instruments that will help achieve these goals by providing various forms of residential intensification along a major transit route while generating employment opportunities with applicable mixed-use developments.
17Mr. Jacobs opined that the Tribunal’s should approve the portions of OPA 38, as approved by the Region, that are before it except for the site-specific appeals that are before the Tribunal. This partial approval of OPA 38 by the Tribunal would represent good land use planning. In Mr. Jacobs’s opinion, the approval of these portions of OPA 38 are intended to be without prejudice to the portions of OPA 38 that are still under appeal before the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion of Mr. Jacobs. The Tribunal notes that no other evidence was provided to the Tribunal by the Appellants or Parties.
19Mr. Jacobs has demonstrated to the Tribunal that OPA 38 was consistent with the previous provincial policies that were in place at the time of the Region’s approval such as the PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan.
20Mr. Jacobs has demonstrated that OPA 38 is consistent with the now in effect PPS 2024 as OPA 38 focuses of areas of growth within the settlement area and in a Rapid Transit Corridor. OPA 38 will allow for a broad mix of housing types and intensification to occur, while generating employment opportunities and an appropriate amount of mixed-use development to occur.
21Mr. Jacobs has demonstrated that OPA 38 was approved by Durham Region is some modifications and OPA 38 conforms to the Region’s OP.
22The Tribunal finds that the requested partial approval of OPA 38 is appropriate and should be approved as presented. The Tribunal finds that the partial approval of OPA 38 will not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals that are before the Tribunal. The partial approval of OPA 38 as per s. 17(50) of the Act will allow for the intended growth and development to begin immediately and will not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed, in part, and Official Plan Amendment No. 38 of the City of Pickering is approved as set out in Attachment 1 below. The site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 shall continue and are referenced in the schedules listed below in Attachment 1. All other lands and aspects of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 other than the previously referenced site-specific appeals, are hereby approved.
24THIS ORDER is without prejudice to the remaining site-specific appeals that remain before the Tribunal. The remaining site-specific appeals may be scheduled for a CMC at the request of the Parties or at the direction of the Tribunal.
“S. deBoer”
S. deboer
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.
Attachment 1