Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 27, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000445
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Holland Hope General Partners Inc.
Subject:
Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision respecting a Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Reference Number:
OPA.22.01
Property Address:
Various Addresses (19349, 19357, 19365 and 19399 Yonge St.)
Municipality/UT:
East Gwillimbury/York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000445
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000445
OLT Case Name:
Holland Hope General Partners Inc. v East Gwillimbury
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number:
ZBA.22.02
Property Address:
Various Addresses (19349, 19357, 19365 and 19399 Yonge St.)
Municipality/UT:
East Gwillimbury/York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000446
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000445
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject:
Site Plan
Reference Number:
19T-22001, SPA.22.08
Property Address:
Various Addresses (19349, 19357, 19365 and 19399 Yonge St.)
Municipality/UT:
East Gwillimbury/York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000447
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000445
Heard:
April 2, 3, 4, 2024, by video hearing
May 2, 2024, in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Holland Hope General Partners Inc.
Paul DeMelo
Town of East Gwillimbury
Laura Dean
Anastasia Jones (Student-at-Law)
DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT G. ACKErMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1This is a Hearing on the Merits of Appeals filed by Holland Hope General Partners Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) against the Town of East Gwillimbury (“Town” or “Respondent”) from the failure of Council for the Town to render a Decision on the Appellant’s Applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) (collectively “ the Applications”) with respect to the properties municipally known as 19349, 19357, 19365 and 19399 Yonge Street (collectively the “Subject Property”) in the Town.
2The Subject Property is located on the east side of Yonge Street south of its intersection with Thompson Drive and Bradford Street, and consists of four improved residential lots comprising a total area of 0.612 hectare (“Ha.”) (1.51 ac.) 6,180.7 square meters (“sq. m.”) or 66,528.5 square feet (“sq. ft.”). Approval of the Applications would permit the redevelopment of the Subject Property with 103 apartment and back-to-back townhouse units, together with ground floor commercial space, all contained within six back-to-back townhouse blocks of four stories each and one mid-rise mixed-use apartment building of five stories at the corner of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive.
3The Subject Property is designated as being within a Village Core area, a Local Centre and a Local Corridor by the East Gwillimbury Official Plan (“EGOP”) and is zoned MU1—Mixed Use under the Town’s Zoning By-law 2018-043 (“ZBL”). The Subject Property has access to transit and major corridors, is fully municipally serviced and located in an area with access to institutional uses including schools and libraries, open space and recreational uses, amenities, and services, as well as minor commercial and retail uses. The proposed ZBA would amend the ZBL to rezone the Subject Property to R4 – Residential Four Zone, and to permit site-specific exemptions for minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, and maximum building height.
THE HEARING
4The Hearing of these Appeals proceeded over a three-day period on April 2, 3, 4, 2024. In addition, the Parties filed Written Submissions which were completed on May 2, 2024.
5The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses:
For the Appellant Jim Kotsopoulos, Planner, who testified as an expert witness;
Darshan Soni, P.Eng., who testified as an expert witness.
For the Town Victoria Moore, Planner, who testified as an expert witness.
6The following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Joint Document Book;
Exhibit 2 – Witness Statement of Jim Kotsopoulos;
Exhibit 3 – Witness Statement of Darshan Soni;
Exhibit 4 – Revised Site Plan and Scoped Issues List;
Exhibit 5 – Witness Statement of Victoria Moore;
Exhibit 6 – Visual Evidence Brief of the Town;
Exhibit 7 – Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty – Jim Kotsopoulos;
Exhibit 8 – Oxford Village Seniors’ Centre;
Exhibit 9 – Schedule A;
Exhibit 10 – Schedule A-1;
Exhibit 11 – Schedule B-1;
Exhibit 12 – Schedule B-5;
Exhibit 13 – Updated Schematic Design by TACT Architects;
Exhibit 14 – Excerpt from EGOP June 2022.
7The Appellants’ Written Submissions were filed on April 22, 2024.
8The Respondent’s Written Submissions were filed on April 30, 2024.
9The Appellants’ Reply Submissions were filed on May 2, 2024.
ISSUES
10A Scoped Issues List (“IL”) was agreed to by the Parties and was filed and marked as Exhibit 4 along with a revised Site Plan (“RSP”). The IL indicated which issues had been resolved prior to the Hearing and which remained outstanding, and is reproduced below:
OLT-23-000445 - Scoped Issues List
Issue
Town Comment
1
Is it premature for the Tribunal to consider the site plan application when there is no servicing allocation for the subject site?
Not resolved
2
Is it premature for the Tribunal to consider the site plan application when there is an active draft plan of subdivision application for the subject site?
Not resolved
3
Does the proposed development conform to the Town’s Zoning By-law? And have all required Zoning deficiencies been addressed in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment?
Not resolved
4 a)
Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Official Plan (including, but not limited to the following)? a) Section 3.2.3.2.2 – with respect to Local Centres being intended to be the prime focus of commercial activity;
Not resolved
4 b)
Section 4.3.3.1 with respect to permitted uses;
Not resolved
4 c)
4.3.3.2 – maximum height is 4 storeys;
Not resolved
4 d)
Section 4.3.3.4 Do the proposed buildings complement and enhance the historical and/or architectural character of the area;
Not resolved
4 e)
Section 4.3.3.5 – have these criteria been satisfied;
Resolved
4 f)
Section 6.2.13 – has the heritage building been thoroughly documented; and
Resolved
4 g)
Section 6.2.20 – does the proposal have adequate regard for the preservation of trees?
Resolved
5
Is the proposed development too dense to permit appropriate site circulation?
Resolved
6
Are the proposed setbacks appropriate and do they represent good planning?
Not resolved
7
Does the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?
Resolved
8
Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement?
Resolved
9
Has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed 0 m interior side yard setback is adequate to ensure neighbouring trees are protected and will not be damaged during construction?
Resolved
10
Does the proposed development adequately address the Town’s technical comments dated May 17, 2022 and September 30, 2022?
Resolved
11
Is sufficient parking provided on site and is the proposed parking functional?
Not resolved
12
Is the proposed access to the subject site safe and appropriate?
Not resolved -subject to approval of York Region
13
Has the required tree compensation been provided in accordance with the Town’s Parks Design Standards Manual and Thinking Green Design Standards?
Resolved
14
Have the minimum requirements for a landscape buffer/planting strip been provided in accordance with Section 4.25 of the Zoning By-law and the Parkland Design Standards Manual? Is the landscape buffer adequate?
Resolved
15
Is the proposed development compatible with the Yonge Street Revitalization project?
Resolved
16
Are the proposed internal walkways functional and appropriate?
Not resolved
17
Is there adequate snow storage on the subject site?
Resolved
18
Are the proposed loading spaces appropriate and functional?
Not resolved
19
Has capacity analysis been conducted to demonstrate that downstream sewers can convey sanitary flows from this the subject site?
Not resolved -would be included as a condition of a site plan agreement
20
Is the proposed curb radii for driveway access to Yonge Street and Thompson Drive adequate without projecting onto adjacent property lines?
Resolved
21
Can the minimum engineering standards for internal laneway widths (6.5m) be achieved on the subject site?
Resolved
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1 – Is it premature for the Tribunal to consider the site plan application when there is no servicing allocation for the subject site?
11The evidence of Ms. Moore was that servicing allocation is an impediment to development within the Town, and that the Town is unable to meet the current demand for servicing allocation until the York-Durham Sewage System expansion is completed, which may require several years. Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that it is not premature for the Tribunal to render a decision to approve the RSP even though servicing allocation is not currently available, if a hold is placed on final development approval. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the event the Tribunal determines that the proposed development represents good planning, the Tribunal could direct that an “H” holding provision be appended to the site-specific ZBA.
12The Tribunal observes that there appeared to be consensus between Counsel regarding the inclusion of an “H” holding designation to address the matter of servicing allocation. On that basis, the Tribunal finds that the Applications are not premature due to a lack of servicing allocation.
ISSUE NO. 2 - Is it premature for the Tribunal to consider the site plan application when there is an active draft plan of subdivision application for the subject site?
13Ms. Moore testified that there is an Application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision outstanding, which was filed by the Appellant but not appealed to the Tribunal. She testified that the draft plan of subdivision must be approved and registered prior to approval of the RSP. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the outstanding draft plan of subdivision is only a required “technical” application as the merger of title to the four lots comprising the Subject Property is required for approval and registration of an M-Plan, which will define the ultimate building envelope for the Subject Property.
14The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Appellant and finds that the Application for the outstanding draft plan of subdivision a technical requirement only, and that it does not impact any of the planning instruments under consideration by the Tribunal or the form of development that could proceed should the Tribunal allow the Appeals and approve the Applications. The SPA is therefore not premature despite the outstanding Application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision.
ISSUE NO. 3 - Does the proposed development conform to the Town’s Zoning By-law? And have all required Zoning deficiencies been addressed in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment?
15In cross-examination Counsel for the Town questioned Mr. Kotsopoulos regarding “deficiencies” in the prosed ZBA, OPA and RSP. While he agreed with the proposition that the ZBA, OPA and RSP could not be approved in their current form, in redirect by Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that the Appellant intended to work cooperatively with Town staff to revise the ZBA, OPA and RSP to cure all of the Town’s “deficiencies”.
16The Subject Property is zoned Mixed-Use One (MU1). The evidence of Ms. Moore and of Mr. Kotsopoulos was that the “MU1” zone permits a range of commercial uses and low-density residential uses, including single detached dwellings and townhouses. The evidence of both planners was that the “R4” Zone designation sought in the ZBA Application would permit a wider range of residential uses, including back-to-back townhouses and apartment buildings. The ZBA proposed by the Applicant would impose site-specific exemptions for the following standards:
i. Minimum front yard setback;
ii. Minimum rear yard setback;
iii. Minimum exterior side yard setback; and
iv. Maximum building height.
17In cross-examination, Ms. Moore acknowledged that her comments with regards to required modification and updates to the proposed ZBA to correct “deficiencies” could be made by the Parties working together prior to approval. She also confirmed that none of the required changes would raise a reason for the refusal of the Application for the ZBA.
ISSUE NO. 4 a) - Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Official Plan, Section 3.2.3.2.2, with respect to Local Centres being intended to be the prime focus of commercial activity?
18Ms. Moore testified that the density of the Applicant’s proposal is five times greater than the density permitted in the EGOP as it proposes 168 units per Ha., as opposed to 32 units per Ha. Permitted under the EGOP. She also testified that five storeys is taller than any existing building in Holland Landing, and further that there is no precedent anywhere in the Town for a development featuring stacked/back-to-back townhouses, or on the scale of the proposed development.
19However, the assertion by Ms. Moore that there was no precedent for a development on the scale of the proposal was shown not to be the case, as such an example exists just south of the Subject Property on Yonge Street which was included in Exhibit 6, the Town’s Visual Evidence Brief. Ms. Moore also acknowledged in cross-examination that it is not a requirement to show that the form of proposed development already exists within a community, to establish conformity with an Official Plan, or with good land use planning principles. Counsel for the Appellant submits that this is not only counter to good planning but would instead reinforce a notion that development must always be the same as the surrounding context, which is not what any Official Plan requires. The Tribunal agrees.
20Mr. Kotsopoulos testified, and Counsel for the Appellant submitted, that the OPA should include a site-specific provision permitting the proposed density of 168 units per net Ha., as well as an FSI of 1.30. Mr. Kotsopoulos testified, and Counsel for the Appellant also submitted, that language be added to the OPA to ensure that the additional one storey in height is limited to the five storey mixed-use building proposed to be at the Yonge-Thompson intersection. In cross-examination, Ms. Moore confirmed that with inclusion of the foregoing stipulations, the Appellant’s proposal would conform with the policies in the EGOP related to Local Centres, and the Tribunal so finds.
ISSUE NO. 4 b) - Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Official Plan, Section 4.3.3.1, with respect to permitted uses?
21It is the position of the Town, and submission of its Counsel, that stand-alone residential uses are not permitted in the MU1 Zone, and by extension, are not permitted in the Village Core Area. The Tribunal observes that in cross-examination, Ms. Moore acknowledged that there is no explicit restriction in the EGOP excluding stand-alone residential uses in the Village Core Area. Ms. Moore also testified as to her opinion that the Appellant’s proposal offers a minimal amount of commercial, or non-residential GFA on the ground floor of the five-storey building and that it therefore would not qualify as a true mixed-use building. However, Ms. Moore was unable to identify such a requirement in the EGOP and the Tribunal observes that the Town did not call any technical evidence to support the position that there is a minimum threshold amount of non-residential GFA required which must be met by mixed-use developments to qualify as such. The Tribunal therefore finds that there is no minimum amount of non-residential GFA required by the EGOP to qualify a development as mixed-use, and that the proposed five storey building will satisfy the requirements for a mixed-use building under the EGOP.
ISSUE NO. 4 c) - Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Official Plan, Section 4.3.3.2, with respect to the maximum height of 4 storeys?
22Counsel for the Town has submitted that “the crux of the disagreement between the Town’s planner and the Appellant’s planner is with respect to the appropriateness of the Proposed Development’s height and density in the Village Core Area”.
23Mr. Kotsopoulos testified, and Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the proposed height increase to five storeys will maintain the general intent and purpose of the EGOP as it represents a nominal increase to the existing maximum of four storeys. Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that as the proposed five storey building is to be located at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive (the north-west corner of the Subject Property), transition will effectively be allowed from the compliant four storey back-to-back townhouses towards the existing lower density townhouses to the east and the single detached dwellings to the south.
24Ms. Moore confirmed in her testimony that the current EGOP density of 32 units per Ha. is not appropriate for the Subject Property as it does not represent an appropriate level of development and density for the Subject Property in view of its location at a key intersection within a Village Core and a Local Centre. Ms. Moore acknowledged the likelihood that the density provisions of the EGOP would have motivated the Appellant to seek relief through an OPA.
25Ms. Moore acknowledged that as-of-right, the EGOP permits a four storey building at the corner of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive on the Subject Property. She agreed with the proposition that, when assessing the impact of the proposed five storey height, the starting point is the four storey height permitted by the EGOP. It was agreed by both planners that the additional one storey of height at this location would not give rise to any negative impacts or matters of incompatibility while at the same time providing a focal development at what is a key intersection.
26There was no evidence presented by the Town that the level of development in the Appellant’s proposal could not be appropriately accommodated on the Subject Property or would give rise to any negative impacts. Overall, the Tribunal observes that both planners appeared to be in agreement that the proposed development would represent an improvement over the current improvements on the Subject Property, and what the EGOP currently permits. Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that the proposal would be more in line with the Town’s vision for the Yonge-Thompson intersection and for the Yonge Street Corridor. He also testified that the Appellant’s proposal would be in line with the objectives of York Region in the Yonge Street Revitalization Project.
ISSUE NO. 4 d) - Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Official Plan, Section 4.3.3.4, with respect to whether the proposed buildings complement and enhance the historical and/or architectural character of the area?
27Ms. Moore acknowledged that, following the mediation and submission of the RSP, the Appellant had provided a design brief to the Town that outlined how the proposed development could be designed to incorporate matters of a historical and architectural character with respect to which Town staff had expressed concerns. Ms. Moore acknowledged the willingness of the Appellant and of Town staff to work together regarding a final design.
28The Tribunal finds that, with the amendments agreed between the Parties, the Appellant’s proposal would conform with all applicable policies and the objectives of the EGOP.
ISSUE NO. 5 - Is the proposed development too dense to permit appropriate site circulation?
29Mr. Soni is a traffic engineer who was called by the Appellant, and testified that there were no issues from a transportation or traffic circulation perspective that constituted an impairment to the proposed development. He also testified as to how the Town’s transportation concerns had been addressed in the RSP. In addition he testified regarding the further amendments that could be made to the RSP to identify the dimensions of the required loading spaces and of the additional assisted parking spot requested by Town staff.
30Ms. Moore acknowledged Mr. Soni’s evidence and comments and did not raise any concerns with regard thereto. The Town did not call a transportation expert to rebut Mr. Soni’s testimony nor did it file any such evidence.
ISSUE NO. 6 - Are the proposed setbacks appropriate and do they represent good planning?
31The following exemptions are being requested for the setbacks for the proposed development:
i. Minimum front yard setback;
ii. Minimum rear yard setback; and
iii. Minimum exterior side yard setback.
32The exterior side yard setback is impacted along the entire Yonge Street frontage of the Subject Property. This is the result of the required conveyance of a road widening requirement to York Region. Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that the proposed 0.50 m. setback is appropriate because the ground floor commercial use in the five storey mixed-use building, with an attractive and vibrant façade, will contribute to improved pedestrian realm. Referring to the RSP, he testified that the reduced front and exterior side yard setbacks occur at only two pinch points along the entirety of the respective lot lines. Except for the location of the two pinch points, he pointed out that there is significant widening of the setbacks along the balance of both lot lines. While the front yard setback is 1.22 m. along the hypotenuse of the daylight triangle at the intersection of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive, the setback widens to 10.75 m. along the remainder of the front lot line. The exterior side yard setback of 0.50 m. along the Yonge Street frontage effects the ground floor commercial component of the five storey mixed-use building only. The majority of the exterior side yard setback is in the range of 2.80 m., which Mr. Kotsopoulos testified is in excess of the minimum requirement in the ZBL.
33Ms. Moore acknowledged that all work that the Appellant may undertake would have to occur outside of the right-of-way and that no construction work could encroach onto the right-of-way unless the Appellant obtained permission from York Region, in the case of Yonge Street, and from the Town, in the case of Thompson Drive.
34There was no evidence provided for the basis for the Town’s objection to the proposed setback of 0.56 m. for the perimeter of the underground garage. With respect to the setbacks along the Yonge Street frontage, the Tribunal notes that York Region has not expressed any concern.
35Front Yard – Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that the requirement for the widening of Yonge Street necessitates shallower front and exterior side yard setbacks to accommodate adequate points of access and egress, turning radii, loading spaces, and interior site-circulation networks to service the proposed residential and commercial units. He testified that the conveyance and the Yonge Street widening will contribute significantly to improvement of the public realm. Counsel for the Appellant submits, that in view of the benefit to be achieved, the reduced front yard setback should be considered as being appropriate in this instance. The Tribunal agrees.
36Rear Yard – Mr. Kotsopoulos testified that the rear yard setback of 3 m. along the southern lot limit of the Subject Property, only pertains to those back-to-back townhouse units that are directly fronting onto Yonge Street. The balance of the townhouse units along the southern lot line provide for a rear wall setback of 5.5 m., which he testified is compatible with the prescribed 7.5 m. rear yard setback. Those units providing for the proposed 3 m. rear yard, abut the side-yard lot line of the abutting single detached dwelling to the south. As shown on the RSP, the proposed combination of the landscaping, tree planting and fencing mitigate any potential overlook issues for the homes abutting Subject Property to the south.
37Exterior Side Yard -- The proposed 0.50 m. exterior side yard setback pertains only to the proposed five storey mixed-use building at the northwest corner of the Subject Property at the intersection of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive. The RSP shows that the proposed Exterior Side Yard widens to 2.83 m. for the balance Yonge Street frontage of the Subject Property, and so for all of the residential units fronting onto Yonge Street.
38The Tribunal finds that the proposed setbacks are appropriate and represent good land use planning.
ISSUE NO. 6 – Is sufficient parking provided on site and is the proposed parking functional?
39The Town called no evidence in relation to the sufficiency, location or functionality of parking, or to contradict the evidence of Mr. Soni. As Counsel for the Appellant has submitted, the Appellant will work with Town staff to further revise the RSP to provide for an accessible parking spot to be located closer to the mixed-use building and the intersection of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive.
40The Tribunal finds that the Appellant’s proposal provides for sufficient parking on site and that the proposed parking is functional.
ISSUE NOS. 12, 16, 18, 19
41No evidence was tendered by the Town regarding these four issues. The Tribunal determines that these issues have been abandoned by the Town.
CONCLUSION
42Notwithstanding the number of issues indicated as unresolved in the IL, the Tribunal has observed, and as Counsel for the Appellant submits, that the Town’s opposition boils down to, in the words of Ms. Moore, the objection that “the proposed density is five times greater than that currently permitted in the Official Plan.” Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Town’s position is unreasonable as the EGOP was last approved in 2010, and has been surpassed by two updated versions of the PPS, and by the updated Growth Plan (“GP”) and by the updated York Region Official Plan (“YROP”), all of which identify the need for greater levels of density throughout urban areas such as that within which the Subject Property is located.
43Ms. Moore acknowledged that the PPS, GP, YROP and the EGOP, support and encourage general intensification throughout the urban area and that the Subject Property can and should accommodate more development than that which is envisioned in the EGOP policies dating from 2010. Ms. Moore also confirmed consistency and compliance with upper-tier planning instruments, and of the applicable provisions of the EGOP, with the exception of the two provisions which are the subject of the Appeal of the Application for the OPA. Ms. Moore also acknowledged that the existing use of the Subject Property is not an appropriate level of development, and that the Town’s vision is for intensification at the intersection of Yonge Street and Thompson Drive, and she agreed that the Yonge Street Corridor should feature a more urban streetscape with much more significant densities. She acknowledged in cross-examination that the current EGOP designation limiting density on the Subject Property to 32 units per Ha. is not appropriate.
44After careful consideration of all of the testimony of the witnesses, the expert reports and other documents filed, and of the submissions by Counsel on behalf of the Parties, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development, as identified in the OPA, ZBA and RSP:
a. Has appropriate regard for those items identified in Section 2 of the Planning Act;
b. Is consistent with the PPS 2022;
c. Conforms with the Growth Plan;
d. Conforms with the YROP;
e. Conforms with and advances all applicable objectives under the EGOP; and
f. Represents good land use planning for the Subject Property.
ORDER
45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
a. The Appeals of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application, the Official Plan Amendment Application and the Site Plan Approval Application are allowed;
b. The Parties are directed to provide the Tribunal with revised forms of the Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan amendment and Site Plan that incorporate the planners’ agreed changes;
c. The Tribunal Orders that the form of the development on the Subject Property proceed substantially in accordance with the Site Plan drawings attached as Appendix 1 and that the permission allowing the five storey mixed-use building is limited to the building proposed for the northwest corner of the Subject Property, and not for any other building;
d. The Tribunal Orders that the Zoning By-law Amendment include a Holding symbol (“H”) and contain a provision that the following conditions must be satisfied for its removal:
i. The Region and the Town have confirmed that servicing allocation is available and that the Town has allocated sufficient capacity to the Proposed Development;
ii. No Site Plan Agreement shall be executed for the Subject Site until such time as Council has allocated sufficient servicing allocation to facilitate the proposed development on the Subject Site.
e. The Tribunal shall withhold its Final Order until such time as it has been advised in writing by the Town that the Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment and Site Plan are in a form acceptable to the Town;
f. The Tribunal will remain available to be spoken to should the parties require assistance.
46This Member shall remain seized.
“Robert G. Ackerman”
ROBERT G. ACKERMAN
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.
APPENDIX 1