Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 15, 2024
CASE NO.: OLT-22-003362 (Formerly PL190422)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Aspen Garden Bowmanville Ltd Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 84-63- Refusal or neglect of Town of Clarington to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of a 136-unit residential subdivision Reference Number: ZBA2018-0027 Property Address: Lot 17, Concession 1 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Clarington OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003362 Legacy Case No.: PL190422 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003362 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL190422 OLT Case Name: Aspen Garden Bowmanville Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Aspen Garden Bowmanville Ltd Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of a 136-unit residential subdivision Reference Number: S-C 2018-0001 Property Address: Lot 17, Concession 1 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Clarington OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003363 Legacy Case No.: PL190423 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003362 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL190422
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Aspen Garden Bowmanville Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the construction of a 136-unit residential subdivision Reference Number: SPA 2019-0005 Property Address: Lot 17, Concession 1 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Clarington OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003364 Legacy Case No.: PL190424 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003362 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL190422
BEFORE: SHARYN VINCENT VICE-CHAIR Monday, the 15th day of April, 2024
THESE MATTERS in respect of the lands at Lot 17, Concession 1 in the Municipality of Clarington, having come for a Telephone Conference Call on April 4, 2024, before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the "Tribunal");
AND THE TRIBUNAL having issued a Procedural Order on December 15, 2023;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having, on consent of the parties, received a request to scope the issues and extend the deadline for exchange of Reply Witness Statements from April 8, 2024, to April 15, 2024;
NOW THEREFORE
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the request to amend submission dates, as agreed to between the Parties attached hereto as Attachment 1, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearings, which is scheduled to commence on May 6, 2024. The Tribunal has set aside 5 days for the hearings.
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the scoped Issues List issued on April 15, 2024, is hereby rescinded and the scoped Issues List attached hereto as Attachment 2 is hereby in full force and effect.
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR
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
REVISED SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE EVENT
February 6, 2024 Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
February 18, 2024 Last date to challenge qualifications of expert witnesses
March 7, 2024 Last date of Expert Witness Meetings
March 15, 2024 Agreed Upon Statement of Facts
March 22, 2024 Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
April 15, 2024 Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
April 1, 2024 Notification to Tribunal if all hearing dates required
April 26, 2024 Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any) and Joint Document Book
April 29, 2024 Hearing Plan
May 6, 2024 Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
OLT-22-003362 – Municipality of Clarington - Issues List
1. Are the applications consistent with Policy 1.6.6 and 2.2.1(i) of the Provincial Policy Statement?
2. Do the applications conform with Policy 3.2.7 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?
3. Do the applications conform with Sections 2.3.16, 2.3.20, 2.4.43, 5.24, 8B.2.3(f) and 14.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP)?
- Do the applications conform with Chapter 3~~, in particular Sections 3.4.16 and 3.4.17, Chapter 9, in particular Section 9.4.5h)~~ of the Clarington Official Plan?
5. Does the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the criteria of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, particularly subsections 51(24) (a) and (h)?
- Have the impacts of the proposed development been adequately studied, and will the impacts be appropriately mitigated, in particular:
(a) have the development limits/constraints of the site been appropriately identified, including evaluation of the Vegetation Protection Zone related to the woodland features and wildlife habitat?
(b) are the proposed sight triangles and road widths adequate and do they meet municipal standards?
(c) does the proposed grading of the site exceed the maximum 5% slope?
(d) does the proposal demonstrate the appropriateness of altering the drumlin landform feature and the use of retaining walls through a Slope Stability Analysis and Geotechnical Report?
(g) have appropriate Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports been provided to confirm that the proposed development meets applicable standards and guidelines?
- Can the proposed development meet applicable technical standards and guidelines, including:
(a) are the proposed retaining walls appropriate, and do they meet municipal standards and guidelines?
(b) is the proposed grading plan appropriate, in particular as it relates to the maximum permissible slope?
(c) has an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) been prepared that appropriately addresses limits of development, and Vegetation Protection Zones?
(d) have appropriate Functional Servicing and Geotechnical Reports been submitted?
(e) is the amenity space appropriately situated on the site, and is it accessible and free from undue constraint and has it been adequately demonstrated that the design of the medium density block achieves the requirements of the “Amenity Guidelines for Medium and High Density Residences”?
(f) has it been adequately demonstrated that Low Impact Development measures are an appropriate treatment train approach for stormwater management on the site?
(g) has it been adequately demonstrated that the applications meet the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Checklists contained within the “Green Development Framework and Implementation Plan”?
8. Has the appellant appropriately addressed the site servicing and engineering comments from the Region?
9. Does the proposal provide for appropriate on-street parking?
If the proposal is approved in principle, what are the appropriate zoning categories and performance standards for the zoning by-law?
If the proposal is approved, should the proposed zoning by-law amendment be subject to holding conditions in connection with provision of services, measures to protect natural areas, measures to mitigate the impact of development, or submission of technical studies?
If a draft plan of subdivision and site plan is approved, what are the appropriate draft plan conditions and conditions of approval?
Do the applications represent good land use planning?