Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 28, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000069

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2247322 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To construct a six-storey retirement home consisting of 131 units

Reference Number: SPA18.017

Property Address: 12637 Tenth Line, Unit 101

Municipality/UT: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000069

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000069

OLT Case Name: 2247322 Ontario Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)

Heard: May 2, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

2247322 Ontario Inc.

Bruce Engel

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Andrew Biggart

DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1This matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) was with respect to the appeal by 2247322 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), as a result of the failure of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (“Township”) to approve the proposed Site Plan within the legislated timeframe (“Appeal”) relating to 12637 Tenth Line (“Subject Property”).

2The Appeal seeks the approval to facilitate the construction of a six-storey retirement home with a total of 131 units.

ISSUE / CHRONOLOGY

On January 24, 2022 the Tribunal heard a minor variance appeal (Tribunal File No. OLT-21-001346) relating to the subject property ("2022 Appeal"). The 2022 Appeal was commenced by Courtney Valley Estates Inc. (“Courtney Valley”) and Lillipad Development Inc. (“Lillipad”) when they appealed the February 12, 2020 decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to grant a provisional Consent to the Appellant to create one new lot fronting on Tenth Line.

3Township staff had suggested the inclusion of the following condition:

That the Owner agree in the Site Plan Agreement to enter into a cost-sharing Agreement with Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Development Inc. related to any services, roads, and right-of-way that they will benefit from to be constructed or financed by Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Development Inc.

4It was reiterated that the Appellant to this Hearing would stand to benefit from services being front ended by Courtney Valley and Lillipad, and that the costs thereof ought to be included as a condition of approval of the minor variance.

5The COA did not impose the requested condition despite Courtney Valley and Lillipad requests and the Township staff’s recommendation.

6At the 2022 Appeal, the Tribunal denied the appeal.

7Counsel for Courtney Valley and Lillipad subsequently submitted a Rule 23, Request for Review of the Tribunal’s decision, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

8Upon review, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Review of the 2022 Appeal.

9The Tribunal heard that the Appellant thereafter had submitted a complete application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA18.017”) that included the plans and drawings required by the Township per the legislative authority under s. 41(4) of the Act.

10Cooperative efforts led to multiple revisions to the content of the Site Plan Agreement (“SPA”) by both Parties. The current version of the SPA was issued by the Township on