Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000583
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2167284 Ontario Inc
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the amendment of the City’s Zoning By-law in order to facilitate the development of 19 townhouse units
Reference Number: ZN8-23-06
Property Address: 360 Mill Street
Municipality: Woodstock
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000583
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000583
OLT Case Name: 2167284 Ontario Inc. v Woodstock (City)
Heard: July 31, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2167284 Ontario Inc.
Raj Kehar Narmada Gunawardana
City of Woodstock
David Creery
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ASTRID J. CLOS ON juLY 31, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened for appeals brought by 2167284 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) of the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the properties municipally addressed as 360 and 366 Mill Street (“Subject Property”) in the City of Woodstock (“City”).
2The Appellant owns two abutting properties in the City with frontage on Mill Street. The existing two single detached homes are proposed to be removed.
3The purpose of the ZBA is to allow 19 townhouse units provided in four blocks on the Subject Property.
4City Planning staff recommended approval of the ZBA. On April 18, 2024, Council refused the ZBA. The Appellant subsequently appealed the ZBA.
5The Affidavit of Service sworn on June 18, 2024, was entered as Exhibit 1.
STATUS REQUESTS
6In response to the notice, requests for Participant status were filed by Walter Vereecken and Randy Gordon. The Tribunal reviewed the requests and determined that reasonable grounds and genuine land use planning issues were being raised, and with no opposition from the Parties, granted the requested Participant status.
7In response to the notice, no requests for Party status had been filed with the Tribunal.
CONTESTED HEARING
8Mr. Creery, Counsel for the City, advised that his client remains in opposition to the ZBA but does not intend to provide any expert evidence or call any witnesses. Mr. Creery indicated that the City’s role in the contested hearing would be to provide a statement of the City’s concerns regarding the ZBA.
9Mr. Kehar, Counsel for the Appellant, advised that a Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) had been filed prior to the CMC with the Tribunal. He stated that, given that the City does not intend to provide any evidence and that the City has no issues to include in the Issues List, there does not appear to be any utility in providing an updated DPO to regulate the proceeding.
10Mr. Creery had no concern with a DPO not being filed.
11The Tribunal is in agreement that a DPO is not required to be filed for this matter.
12Mr. Kehar indicated that he does intend to file an Affidavit prepared by a qualified expert in support of the ZBA.
13The Parties jointly requested that the first available hearing date in the Tribunal’s calendar be scheduled to hear this matter. The Tribunal canvassed the availability of Counsel and whether there were any objections to this being a Written Hearing. Counsel for the Parties indicated that they had no concerns with the matter being scheduled as a Written Hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a Written Hearing for Tuesday, August 27, 2024, in accordance with Rule 21 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
14Mr. Kehar indicated that Rule 21.3 of the Rules could result in the Affidavit being filed after the scheduled Written Hearing date. Working with the schedules of Counsel for both Parties, the Tribunal directed that the City file the statement of concerns by Friday, August 9, 2024, and that the Appellant file the Affidavit in support of the ZBA by Friday, August 16, 2024, with the Case Coordinator and the other Party.
15The Parties were reminded that Tribunal-led mediation is available at their convenience by contacting the Case Coordinator.
ORDER
16The Tribunal orders THAT:
a. Participant status is granted to Walter Vereecken and Randy Gordon.
b. A Written Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 2024. Submissions by the Parties are to be filed in accordance with the direction provided in this decision.
17This Member is not seized.
18No further notice will be provided.
“Astrid J. Clos”
ASTRID J. CLOS
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.