Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 10, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001263 OLT-23-001327
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 as amended
Appellant: Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject: Appeal of the Decision of Council on an application to demolish or remove a building or structure
Description: To demolish or remove the “Triple Dormitory” building within Camp 30 to accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment
Reference Number: HPA2023-009
Property Location: 2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001263
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001263
OLT Case Name: Lambs Road School Property Limited v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure to make a decision
Description: To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number: ZBA2022-0007
Property Address: 2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001327
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001327
OLT Case Name: Lambs Road School Property Limited 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: Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number: SC2022-0005
Property Address: 2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001328
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001327
BEFORE:
M.A. SILLS VICE-CHAIR
Monday, the 10th day of February, 2025
THESE MATTERS having come before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for a Case Management Conference on May 21, 2024;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having issued the Procedural Order on August 9, 2024, for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to the hearing commencing on March 17, 2025;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received a request, on consent of the Parties, to amend the procedural timelines, the Issue List and hearing commencement contained in the Procedural Order;
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the following dates from the Procedural Order are amended:
- Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called) from January 20, 2025 to February 11, 2025;
- Last date of Expert Witness Meetings from February 7, 2025 to February 14, 2025;
- Agreed Upon Statement of Facts from February 14, 2025 to February 21, 2025;
- Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements from February 21, 2025 to February 28, 2025;
- Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any) from March 5, 2025 to March 12, 2025;
- Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any) and Joint Document Book from March 10, 2025 to March 17 2025;
- Hearing Plan Submission from March 10, 2025 to March 17, 2025.
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the Issue List set out as Attachment “A” to this Order is hereby replaced and shall be in full force and effect;
AND THE TRIUBNAL ORDERS the 10-day merit hearing will now being commence on March 24, 2025 at 10 a.m. through the following video link:
https://meet.goto.com/996288525
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389
Access code: 996-288-525
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI
REGISTRAR (A)
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 A
ISSUES LIST
NOTE: THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ISSUE ON THIS ISSUES LIST DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL PARTIES AGREE THAT SUCH AN ISSUE IS APPROPRIATE OR RELEVANT FOR THE PROPER DETERMINATION OF THE APPEALS. THE EXTENT OF THE APPROPRIATENESS AND/OR RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUE MAY BE A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND/OR ARGUMENT AT THE HEARING.
Issues of the Municipality of Clarington
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Appeals
Do the applications conform with the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP), including but not limited to policy 1.3.1(d) and 2.3.43?
Do the applications conform with the Clarington Official Plan, including but not limited to Chapter 3, including Section 3.4.16?
Do the applications conform with Special Policy Area F of the Official Plan (as amended by OPA 121), in particular:
a. Does the transition between the stacked townhouses and single detached dwellings in the Low-Density Residential designation of Area 1 conform to OPA 121?
b. Does the creation of ravine lots (lots backing onto the Soper Creek valleylands) conform to OPA 121?
c. Does the proposal provide for adequate emergency access and active transportation?
d. Are the sizes and locations of the proposed private amenity areas in conformity with OPA 121?
Have the impacts of the proposed development been adequately studied, and will the impacts be appropriately mitigated, in particular:
a. Has an Intersection Control Study been submitted, and have intersections been appropriately studied?
b. Has an updated Traffic Impact Study demonstrating that the proposal does not negatively impact operation safety and capacity of the road network?
c. Has there been an adequate assessment of the hazards associated with the remnants of the dam and bridge structure?
d. Are the driveway entrances to Area 4 accessible to Emergency Services, without a risk of blockage?
Can the proposed development meet applicable technical standards and guidelines, including:
a. Has adequate tree preservation been accounted for in the proposed development?
b. Has the proposed development demonstrated compliance with applicable standards for groundwater infiltration and monitoring?
c. Does the proposed development within the medium density blocks appropriately reflect the requirements of the “Amenity Guidelines for Medium and High Density Residences”?
d. Has an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) been prepared that appropriately addresses limits of development, and Vegetation Protection Zones?
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?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision have appropriate regard for the matters described in the Planning Act Section 51(24) and, if so, what are the appropriate conditions of draft approval? Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, what conditions of draft approval should be included in respect of the conservation and treatment of the designated heritage buildings within the draft plan?
Do the applications represent good land use planning?
Issues of the Region of Durham
- If a draft plan of subdivision is approved, what are the appropriate draft plan conditions?
CULTURAL HERITAGE ISSUES
Issues of the Municipality of Clarington
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Appeals
Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including but not limited to policies 4.6.1, 4.6.3, and 4.6.4?
Do the applications conform with the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP), including but not limited to policy 1.3.1(d), 2.1.3, 2.2.11, and 2.3.49?
Do the applications conform with the Clarington Official Plan, including but not limited to Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2?
Do the applications conform with Special Policy Area F of the Official Plan (as amended by OPA 121), in particular:
a. Is the proposed surface parking adjacent to Lambs Road in conformity with OPA 121?
b. Do the proposed apartment buildings in Area 2 inappropriately impair views and vistas into the Heritage Park?
c. Are the proposed setbacks to buildings adjacent to Lambs Road and Concession Street in conformity with OPA 121?
What conditions of draft approval should be included in respect of the conservation and treatment of the designated heritage buildings within the draft plan?
Ontario Heritage Act Application Appeal
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest described in Section 2(d) of the Planning Act?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including but not limited to Section 4.6?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building conform with the cultural heritage objectives of the Clarington Official Plan, including but not limited to Chapter 8?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building conform with the cultural heritage objectives of Special Policy Area F of the Official Plan (as amended by OPA 121), in particular Sections 16.7.1.2, 16.7.1.3, 16.7.2.1, 16.7.5.2, 16.7.8.1, 16.7.8.2, 16.7.9.3, 16.7.9.8, 16.7.11.3 and the Block Master Plan?
Will the proposed demolition of the Triple Dormitory building appropriately conserve the property’s identified Cultural Heritage Value and Interest (CHVI)?
Does the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) submitted in support of the application adequately justify the proposed demolition of the Triple Dormitory building?
Does the HIA include an acceptable evaluation of the impact of the proposed demolition?
Does the HIA include acceptable consideration of alternatives, mitigation, and conservation methods and recommendations?
Should the Tribunal Order that the Municipality of Clarington consent to the demolition of the Triple Dormitory building and, if so, what terms or conditions (if any) should be specified in the Order?