Amy Lynne Famme v. Kawartha Lakes (City), 2025 CanLII 130913

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000506

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Amy Lynne Famme

Subject: Consent

Description: Consent to create one new residential lot

Reference Number: D03-2022-010

Property Address: 26 Edgewood Drive

Municipality/UT: Kawartha Lakes/Kawartha Lakes

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000506

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000506

OLT Case Name: Famme v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

Heard: November 7, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Amy Lynne Famme

John Ewart

City of Kawartha Lakes

Jennifer Biggar

DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Merit Hearing of an appeal filed by Amy Lynne Famme (“Appellant”) pursuant to subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 as amended (“Act”) respecting the provisional consent approval decision by the Committee of Adjustments (“CoA”), imposed on May 22, 2025.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING AND SURROUNDINGS

2The location of the Consent request is municipally known as 26 Edgewood Drive in the City of Kawartha Lakes (“CKL”). The proposed severed parcel is +/-7941.6 square metres (“sq m”) to be consolidated with the abutting residential lands (Part 1, RP 57R-9410) with the proposed retained parcel +/- 6,570.9 sq m.

3The whole parcel is designated to be Waterfront in the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan 2012 (“CKLOP”) and is zoned Residential Type One Special “R1-9” Township of Verulam ZBA 6-87. The severed parcel currently contains a detached dwelling, a boathouse, deck and dock. The retained parcel contains a boathouse and dock, with future plans for a detached dwelling.

FOCUS OF THE APPEAL

Requested Relief

4The Appellant does not accept one or more draft conditions of provisional consent and specifically takes issue with the set rate for Cash-in-Lieu(“CIL”) of the dedication of parkland set out in Consent Condition 3 asserting it exceeds the permission and requirements of the Act under ss. 42(6). The Appellant thereby requests that:

1. The Tribunal agree to delete Consent Condition 3 if due to prior consents and subdivision involving the Subject Lands, land was previously conveyed for park purposes and/or Payment-In-Lieu (“PIL”) was made to the municipality; or

2. If no land was conveyed and/or no PIL was previously made to the municipality, the Tribunal agree to delete and replace Consent Condition 3 to conform to the legislation, which would provide greater certainty, clarity, and fairness to all parties involved in the processing of a Consent Application.

5Provisional Consent Condition 3 reads as follows:

The owner shall provide payment of the cash-in-lieu of the dedication of parkland, equal to 5% of the appraised value of the retained parcel as determined by an experiences and qualified land appraiser (CRA or AACI) as of the day before the day the provisional consent was given. The appraisal report shall accompany the cash-in-lieu payment. The City is not required to accept the appraisal report and reserved the right to peer review the appraisal report and negotiate the cash-in-lieu payment. Payment shall be made by certified cheque, money order, or from a lawyer’s trust account.

6The Appellant recommends that Consent Condition 3 be deleted and replaced with the following:

The owner shall provide payment-in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park purposes, to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed, being 328.5 sq. m. (6,570 sq.m. x 5% = 328.5 sq. m.) Such payment shall be equal to the mutually agreed appraised value of 328.5 sq. m. (3,536 sq. ft.) as determined by an experienced and qualified land appraiser (CRA or AACI) as of the day before the day the provisional consent was given. Alternatively, the owner shall provide payment of $3,500.00 in-lieu of the conveyance of land for park purposes. Payment shall be made by certified cheque, money order, or from a lawyer’s trust account.

7In essence, there are two narrow areas of disagreement with Consent Condition 3 as follows:

1. The Appellant contends the intent of s. 42(7) of the Planning Act applies “Where land conveyed…” if the municipality previously received land for public park purposes or PIL, it is not permitted to collect land or money again on that same land; and

2. The Appellant contends that when interpreting s. 51.1(3) of the Act, it is the appraised value of a 5% portion of the applicable lot that must be used to determine the CIL value.

HEARING

8The presentation of this Appeal was provided through the testimony from two expert witnesses who were duly qualified and gave contextual evidence in the field of Land Use Planning:

1. Stuart Douglas Carroll, MCIP, RPP on behalf of the Appellant (sworn); and

2. Leah Barrie, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, CKL on behalf of the CKL (affirmed)

9The Tribunal received and marked eight Exhibits as follows:

1. Administrative Notice dated October 1, 2025;

2. Joint Document Brief;

3. Joint Hearing Plan;

4. Acknowledgement of Expert Duty (Douglas Carroll);

5. Witness Statement of Douglas Carroll;

6.. Password Protected Cr. Exam Q. K1I2M3;

7. Password Protected Cr. Exam Q. t3d6n9;

8. Acknowledgement of Expert Duty (Leah Barrie).

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10When considering this Appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act, has regard to the decision of the approval authority relating to the Consent Application that is before the Tribunal and the information and material that was before the CoA, the proposal must be consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and conform to the Official Plan(s) in effect, whether the proposed Consent is premature or in the public interest; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot, and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services and ultimately, the Tribunal must be satisfied the Appeal represents good land use planning.

11The threshold question in accordance with s. 53(1) of the Act is that the Tribunal be satisfied that a Plan of Subdivision (“PoS”) is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and can proceed by way of application for Consent.

12Under s. 53(12), has regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act which includes inter alia, that the proposed Consent has regard to the effect that the Consent will have on matters of Provincial Interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

Stuart Douglas Carroll

13Outlining his memberships, qualifications and experience, it is evident that Mr. Carroll has familiarity with the CKL processes commencing in 1999 as Area Planner through 2001 to 2016 when he held successive planning positions with the CKL retiring as Manager of Planning after nine years of service.

14Providing background evidence, Mr. Carroll testified that the Subject Lands are within a waterfront low density residential neighbourhood situated between the west limit of Registered Plan No. 153 and at the east limit of Registered Plan 57M-739. The Subject Land is described as Part 6 Plan 57R-6090. He opined this land was previously subject to applications for Consent and despite three requests to staff on his part, for relevant prior County of Victoria Land Division Committee’s files and CKL records, he has not yet been provided with any information respecting the prior conveyance of land or PIL leaving it difficult for his client to provide conclusive evidence whether land was dedicated and/or as a condition of the granting any of those prior Applications.

15The Appellant is reliant on key wording in ss. 51.1(3) PIL as follows:

If the approval authority has imposed a condition under subsection (1) requiring land to be conveyed to the municipality and subsection (2) does not apply, the municipality may require a PIL, to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed.

16It is the evidence of Mr. Carroll that there is subtle distinction between what the legislation at s. 51.1 prescribes and what the municipality has acquired through Consent Condition 3; that is, if the CKL has already received land or PIL for the creation of Part 6, 57R-6090 and registration of Plan 57M-739, then it is unfair, inappropriate and unreasonable for the city to now require additional payment or collect land again on the same parcel of land. It is his evidence the legislation does not require PIL of the dedication of parkland equal to 5% of the appraised value of the retained parcel. However, the legislation does permit the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed for park purposes, to be PIL of such a conveyance.

17Therefore, it is Mr. Carroll’s opinion that Consent Condition 3 is not consistent with, is contrary to, and exceeds the requirements of subsection 51.12(3) of the Act.

18In support of his opinion, Mr. Carroll recites ss.42:

ss. 42(5) provides that land conveyed to a municipality under this section shall be used for park or other public recreational purposes, and

ss. 42(6) permits “PIL, to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed”, and

ss. 42(7) provides that if land has been conveyed or PIL has previously been received by the municipality, under section 51.1 or 53, no additional conveyance or payment in respect of the land subject to the earlier conveyance or payment may be required by the City unless there is a change in the proposed development or redevelopment which would increase the density of development.

19Mr. Carroll testified there is a distinction in terminology between s. 42 and s. 51 in that s. 42 references development and redevelopment of the land and s. 51 deals with subdivision of the land. 3 to determine value of what area of land should be valued and paid to the CKL.

20Mr. Carroll acknowledged in-chief that he was employed with the CKL in 2016 and previously employed with the County of Victoria yet he was not aware of a s. 42 By-law ever being passed.

21In cross-examination Mr. Carroll agreed while he did not review s. 53(12) of the Act in his analysis, he agrees it provides for s. 51.

s. 53(12) A council or the Minister in determining whether a provisional consent is to be given shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51(24) and has the same powers as the approval authority has under subsection 51(25) with respect to the approval of a PoS and subsections 51(26) and (27) and section 51.1 apply with necessary modifications to the granting of a provisional consent.

22Further, Mr. Carroll agreed in cross-examination that s. 42.6 (PIL) and s. 42.7 (Where land conveyed) are not referenced or listed in this Application.

23Mr. Carroll acknowledged as Manager of Planning with the municipality, he was involved with the processing of Consent Applications and was aware of what conditions should be imposed.

24In cross-examination, Mr. Carroll was presented with a Password Protected document that contradicted his evidence that the subject parcel was designated Waterfront wherein the subject parcel is actually described as having an Urban Settlement Designation. He agreed.

25Mr. Carroll agreed further in cross-examination as it relates to the proposed revised Condition 3 wording that it has been used in Consent Applications previously by the CKL and confirmed over the years when he was Manager of Planning with CKL and that he has never proposed the wording he is now proposing in this appeal until it was challenged. Upon his re-reading of the legislation in more fulsome detail, he discovered the CKL policy and the typical condition for both PoS and Consent did not reflect accurate provisions and professed “We were wrong” over the years.

26In cross-examination, Mr. Carroll took no exception with the credibility of a Password Protected document of a case heard by the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) in the Consent matter of Robert Stapley and CKL #PLO90040 (1193 Lornevillel Road), issued March 26, 2009, wherein he gave evidence as Manager of Planning. He provided context by indicating that Mr. Stapley appealed the conditional Consent granted by the CoA of the CKL “severing the adjusted church lot and creating the infill lot”. He could not recall verbatim what he indicated at the time to the Board but believed he had given evidence to the effect, as noted in the decision:

The City planning reports and testimony of land use planner, Doug Carroll, make it clear that the consent appealed is the last part to a thought-out planning exercise carried out in consultation with the City.

27Mr. Carroll confirmed that the wording in Condition 4 is similar to the wording imposed on this present appeal although acknowledged upon review and going through this current appeal process, he had “been wrong in the wording in all the rest of the previous Consent appeals.” He opined he does not share in the interpretation with the CKL at this time with regard to Consent Condition 3. He further admitted he did not come to his conclusion as a result of a full reading and review of the Act and specifically s. 42, s. 51, and s. 53.

28On re-examination by Mr. Ewart, Mr. Carroll could not recall the details of the Stapley file or whether parkland dedication was a live issue although he thought it was silent regarding the matter. He could not recall the “List of Typical Standard Conditions” that were relevant at the time and used by other local municipalities on Consent Applications that would have been issued as part of the decision of the CoA and submitted to the OMB as part of an overall package.

29Mr. Carroll further testified during his tenure with CKL; conditions were not periodically reviewed but could have been modified as CKL staff changed over the years. To his knowledge, the Stapley decision was not appealed or judicially reviewed pursuant to s. 35.

Leah Barrie

30It is Ms. Barrie’s professional planning opinion that the conditions of provisional consent listed in Appendix D represents good planning and is in accordance with Section 53(1) of the Planning Act.

31Ms. Barrie testified that Parkland dedication is a tool that allows CIL to create and fund parks, ensure green space, supports community health and wellbeing, contributes to community growth and the new building lot is appropriate for the parkland dedication. Consent Condition 3 is set in place for community growth, is in accordance with the Act and upholds exactly what CKLOP has been directed to do.

32Ms. Barrie provided comprehensive background information of the Application that was before the City by way of a PowerPoint and the CoA that included sketches, aerial views depicting the characteristics of the Subject Property, a history of CKL rezoning of blocks of lands, a complete file summary, a chronology of staff reports that were circulated both in July 2022 and again in May 2025 for the subject CoA meeting including Agency Comments from DS-Building and Septic Division, ECA Development Engineering Division, Hydro One Networks Inc., Bell Canada all of whom had no objection to the proposed Consent as well as Roads Division who require an Entrance Permit Review Confirmation Letter and lastly, Kawartha Conservation who require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 182/06 prior to onsite works.

33Ms. Barrie notes that the requested entrance permit review has not been included as a condition of Consent given an existing entrance exists to the severed portion and is not applicable to the retained lands. However, she testified, the entrance permit will be needed in the future as part of a proposal to construct a new single detached dwelling on the retained parcel.

34In addition, two surrounding landowners identified concerns over the future use of the land should a large building be placed near the shared lot line, including drainage impacts to well water, air pollution, noise and loss of trees. Ms. Barrie, through her report, indicates Staff have considered the concerns raised and conclude the ZBL and Ontario Building Code contain the appropriate safeguards and provisions to buffer the new development from surrounding uses.

35In addition, she provided background regarding the decision-making authority for Consent Applications emphasizing that the only governing body is Council – “they set the rate and only Council has the authority to change the rate.” She testified the Appellants elected not to file a deputation request to appear before Council to determine next steps regarding this matter and had they done that; Council would report back with options and possible conditions inter alia relating to rezoning and CIL conditions that would ensure titles are identical and to ultimately ensure mergers take place.

36Having considered the Appellant’s position, that if CIL has been paid through previous Consents, the city cannot approach again, Ms. Barrie disagreed that is not what the legislation indicates. She relies on the PoS 57M-739 that the creation of Lot 8 may have, at some point, contributed either parkland or CIL. However, the current lot reconfiguration facilitates an additional 9th dwelling which would not have been permitted through the previous 8 lots for 8 dwellings in the PoS. Therefore, it is Ms. Barrie’s interpretation that CIL is appropriate for the present application and the CKL is authorized to collect CIL for that new lot.

37Regarding Mr. Carroll’s interpretation of the Act that the 5% CIL rate is to only be applied to the 5% of land that would otherwise be conveyed from the owner’s land to the CKL, if the owner was conveying land to the CKL, she indicated CKL staff disagree and have vetted this interpretation through internal and external planners, consultants, solicitors and the Secretary-Treasurer. She asserts the 5% rate applies to the appraised value of the entirety of the new residential parcel.

38In cross-examination, Ms. Barrie acknowledged she was the author of the conditions and selected their appropriateness. Consent Condition 3 came from years of decision-making at the CKL, and that condition was selected to ensure it achieved its ultimate purpose of capturing the right plans in the templated language of “retained” and “severed”. She testified conditions are reviewed each and every time they are selected to ensure they are still relevant, applicable and updated for the specific application.

39It was common ground that Ms. Barrie had discussions with Mr. Carroll on a number of occasions regarding s. 42. She testified the decision that dedication of parkland would not be appropriate as the actual land size was of a size and in a location that would serve no public interest use; that it would not promote or contribute to the CKL’s overall parks network.

40Assuming dedication of parkland was appropriate, it was Ms. Barrie’s understanding that the impacts to the area would be a residential use and the maximum of land that could be taken, was 5% prescribed by the Act.

41In terms of s. 51.1(3) which is the crux of this hearing, Ms. Barrie opined the section does not refer to an actual “5%” figure; it clarifies the municipality has two options: one for cash payment or, the act of receiving parkland which would not restrict or confine the municipality to only receive up to 5% amount of land mass from the Subject Lands.

42On reflection of any number of Consent Applications, Ms. Barrie indicated she cannot recall an example of an Applicant asking to provide the City with a parkland dedication which would, in essence, reduce the size of their property by 5% to give to the City.

43As an aside, in re-examination, Ms. Barrie notes the Strategic Plan for the municipality was tabled months ago by Council with a policy direction recommendation to undertake a review to ensure the CKL is in keeping with good government principles. She indicated there have been discussions on the public record and also shared with Mr. Carroll and his client which creates a different approach to the collection of CIL through a variety of options i.e. fixed rate as opposed to a variable rate or Council could continue the current practice of the language in the Official Plan on the basis of 5% is applicable on the retained parcel as in this case.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2024

Douglas Carroll/Leah Barrie

44Mr. Carroll relies on Section 8 – Definitions that the Subject Lands and neighbourhood are consistent with the definitions of Rural Areas and Settlement Areas as follows and accordingly, Consent Application D03-2022-010 is consistent with and not contrary to these specific policies of the PPS:

Section 2.5.1 (a), provides that “Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by building upon rural character and leveraging rural amenities and assets” and (c) “accommodating an appropriate range and mix of house in rural settlement areas”

Section 2.5.2. states “in rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”

Section 3.6.4 states “Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not available planned or feasible individual onsite sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts.

45Mr. Carroll agrees with Ms. Barrie and therefore it is his opinion that the subject land and neighbourhood are consistent with the definitions of rural areas and settlement area and the creation of a residential lot is consistent with Sections 2.5.1 (a) and (c), 2.5.2 and 3.6.4. Accordingly, the Consent Application is consistent with and not contrary to these policies of the PPS.

City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan, 2012 (“CKLOP”)

Douglas Carroll

46Mr. Carroll agrees with the CKL summary and conclusion of the City’s Staff Report to grant the Consent with the caveat that he disagrees with the wording of Condition 3 as set out but if the proposed change is made to Condition 3, he is of the opinion the Consent is consistent with and not contrary to the Act, the CKLOP and represents good planning.

47Mr. Carroll relies on the following sections:

Section 4 Growth Management as follows:

4.1.j. General Principles states that population growth will be accompanied by: directing lots through Consent “to settlement areas, and may be allowed outside of settlement areas in rural areas in site-specific locations with approve zoning or designation that permits this type of development as of June 16, 2006;

Further; Section 20 Waterfront Designation:

20.3.2. Within this designation, “vacation single detached dwelling” and “single detached dwelling” are permitted uses;

29.1.3 “Any reference to quantities such as lot areas or density of development should be regarded as approximate”;

And further; Section 30 Parks:

34.13 “Pursuant to the Planning Act, the City shall accept the 5% parkland dedication or the equivalent in CIL of parkland for residential.”

48Except for Section 34.13, Condition 3 of Consent Application D03-2022-010 complies with and is not contrary to the above-noted policies in the CKLOP. Section 34.13 does not completely articulate the above-noted requirements of the Act due to its lack of clarity and comprehensive implementation of the Act’s requirements thereby it is open to broad interpretation as evidenced by city staff recommendations and report COA-2025-058.

49In cross-examination referencing s. 18.15.10 under Part C of the CKLOP Waterfront Designation Mr. Carroll was contradicted by a Password Protected KCL document wherein s. 18.15.10 reflect reference to an Urban Settlement Designation and not to a Waterfront Designation. He asserted this section in this document of the CKLOP has been modified as it includes a different city logo but agreed the section refers to an Urban Settlement Designation and not to a Waterfront Designation as he asserted.

50Mr. Carroll confirmed that he had never proposed the revised wording of Condition 3 that he is now proposing as he was wrong in his interpretation during the time he was Manager of Planning and as the Director of Planning. He admitted had he read the Act more closely he would have come to his current opinion sooner and would have included section 51 and 51.1 and 53 in his analysis.

51Mr. Carroll contends that Condition 3 does not comply with municipal policy as it is relating to PIL of the land otherwise required to be conveyed for park purposes.

52In summary, he testified when one subdivides, the CKL is entitled to 5% of the lot being subdivided and 100 precent of the value of that 5%. In this case, it is his evidence, that area is 328.5 sq m. and that, in his opinion the legislation is clear that CIL of the appraised value of the retained parcel is not required.

Leah Barrie

53It is the opinion of Leah Barrie that the application upholds the Waterfront land use designation policies which permit single detached dwellings, as well as policies for the environment which protect the shoreline, parks and consents.

54The application and Condition 3 comply with the applicable policies of the CKLOP.

Township of Verulam ZBA 6-87

Leah Barrie

55It is the opinion of Leah Barrie that the application complies with the provisions of the Residential Type One Special “R-1-9” Zone of Verulam ZBA 6-87, with the exception of the minimum lot area requirement of 0.9 hectares (“ha”) (9,000 sq m.) established by ZBA 8-90 in 1990 to facilitate the creation of five new lots across 5.7 ha. In 1996 the adjacent lots were re-zoned through ZBA 17-96 to R1-14 (and Open Space Special “OSS-6” to facilitate a further lot creation at a reduced lot area of 4,000 sq m.)

56Further, the proposed lot re-configuration is consistent with the surrounding lot fabric subject to the “R-1-14” Zone and as such is a candidate to be re-zoned to R-1-14 or another zone with like-provisions.

57Ms. Barrie acknowledged the CKL does not have a by-law to receive CIL but concluded the CKL does not need by-law under s. 51 of the Planning Act as the Subject Property is a vacant lot absent a detached dwelling.

58The Application and Consent Condition 3 conform to the intent of the ZBA.

59In cross-examination, Ms. Barrie agreed with Mr. Ewart’s proposition that if a homeowner is unable to convey land, that could be seen as unfair and inequitable. However, ultimately, she testified, it is the CKL that decides whether it wants to be the recipient of that land or not.

60Mr. Ewart suggested the condition imposed by the CKL of 5% valuation land could result in an absurd result to the property owner which would be unfair. Ms. Barrie indicated the CKL have not received or seen an appraisal from the Appellant, therefore she is not in a position to opine about the evaluation of the property regarding potential absurdity.

61The Tribunal has reviewed and considered the authorities provided by the parties in arriving at its Findings. Mavis Valley Developments Inc. v Mississauga, [2003] CarswellOnt 960 provided by the Appellant, was a request of the Board to determine what was the appropriate methodology to be applied in calculating the amount of cash as required to be paid to the municipality, in lieu of parkland pursuant to Section 42 of the Act and the Board’s consideration of how to interpret a statute.

62It is the position of the Appellant that the Proper formula is:

The area of land otherwise required to be conveyed for park purposes as calculated at 6570.0m 2 times five percent equals 328.5m2.

63PIL shall be the appraised value of 328.5 m2; not equal to five percent of the appraised value of the retained parcel as required by Condition 3.

64Although the date for determining the value of the land is different under section 42 (…value of the land as of the day before building permits are to be issued…”), the Board approved the methodology that takes the value of the land x5% to reach the value of the CIL of parkland payable.

65The Mavis Valley refers inter alia to having regard to the object and intention of the Act, it is presumed that the legislation does not intend to produce absurd, unreasonable, or inequitable consequences, to provide most reasonable manner and to avoid inequity or injustice;

Addressing s. 42 (7) the Board found inter alia, it establishes that the municipality has the option of obtaining land or CIL for parkland when land is divided but that it cannot then again collect at a later stage unless there is a change in use or density from what was proposed at the stage of dividing the land…

66The Act specifically authorizes a municipality to collect parkland dedication or CIL thereof as a condition of a provisional consent being granted and there is nothing in either of sections 53 or 51.1 which are the sections of the Act that apply, that limit the ability of the municipality to do that in the way suggested by the Appellant.

67Ms. Barrie, after reviewing the CKL records, indicated there is no evidence that parkland dedication or CIL was previously collected.

68The Appellant relies on is Northgate Land Corp. v Waterloo 2023 CanLII 50968 for the limited point of confirming a maximum of 5% that can be taken by the City and further, for the key point of confirming “the maximum amount of land to be conveyed. The Tribunal in that case, accepted “up to” 5 % to be conveyed to the city” making it clear that is the maximum of lands to be conveyed and is capped which allows for consistency to the property owner to decide.

69The Subject Property is identified as Part 6 Plan 57R-6090; it is acknowledged that Part 6 was created by consent; but Part 6 is now being subdivided again and a new building lot created.

70The Act provides authority for this CIL condition to be imposed on this land and is in conformity with the CKLOP and is within the authority given to the CKL in the Act. There is no issue with the clarity of the wording of the condition which provides:

…that the owner will make a payment of CIL of parkland to the City equal to 5% of the appraised value of the retained parcel as determined by an experienced and qualified land appraiser as of the day before the provisional consent was given.

71This condition has been consistently applied by the CKL; reflects long-standing approach to the valuation of a CIL payment.

72As provided by Ms. Biggar on behalf of CKL, the decision of Kidd v. Frontenac (County) Land Division Committee, [1997] O.M.B.D. No. 950 decided by the OMB in1997 was upheld by the Board regarding the methodology used by the Municipality and states:

The approach of using 5% estimated value of the lot to be conveyed taken by the Township appears to be long standing…All lots proposed to be conveyed (3 lots appraised…) should have been subject to an appraisal prior to provisional consent being granted. A 5% CIL may be required from this value for parkland purposes…this is the approach the municipality took in assessing $9,750 against Mr. Kidd. The Board finds no error in this methodology. The amount due for the three Consents to convey is $9,750.00.

73As provided by Ms. Biggar on behalf of CKL, the case of Balderston v. South Bruce Peninsula (Town), [2012] O.M.B.D. No. 231 was decided by the OMB in 2012 and the Board’s ruling was to confirm that the purposes of a condition on a provisional consent requiring a payment or CIL of parkland, the land is valued as it is on the day before the day the provisional consent was given.

The Board finds that the Town’s $60,000 land valuation is reasonable and correct for all of the above reasons. Based on the $60,000 valuation with the CIL of parkland at 5%, the amount is $3,000.

CONCLUSION

74In determining this matter, the Tribunal has had the benefit of receiving fulsome viva voce evidence from Mr. Carroll and Ms. Barrie including submissions from Counsel on the issues in dispute in arriving at its decision. The Tribunal finds that the CKL’s expert evidence provided by Ms. Barrie is persuasive.

75The jurisprudence provided in this matter, confirms that the CKL condition imposed on this application as worded by CKL, is appropriate and reflects the established practice for determining the amount of CIL payments. Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA is fair, reasonable, and appropriate.

76The Appellant’s revised version of the condition appears to provide for only a 328.5 sq m portion of the land to be appraised without any indication of where this land is located and identified on the Subject Lands.

77It is noted that the Appellant has not disputed the 5% amount – only how the land should be valued. Ms. Barrie testified the CKL is transparent with owners on how it reaches the 5% valuation figure and the decision to move forward to the Consent process, is entirely up to the Owner and suggested the process is tested on each and every application and every potential appeal and remains in place without amendment to continue the practice which the CKL believes is correct to undertake.

FINDINGS:

From a policy context, the Tribunal considers the following:

78The Tribunal finds that the Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA on May 22, 2025, has regard to matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 (a), (c) and (f) specifically and finds that these criteria have been; established through the evidence of Ms. Barrie.

79The Tribunal finds and is satisfied and there was common ground between both parties that the condition imposed by the CoA on May 22, 2025 is consistent with the PPS as set out in the evidence.

80The Tribunal finds that Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA is in conformity with the CKLOP 2012 in that the application and proposed conditions uphold the Waterfront land use designation policies which permit single detached dwellings as well as policies for the environment, which protect the shoreline, parks, and consents.

81The Tribunal finds and is satisfied that a PoS is not required under s. 53(1) and that Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA meets the pertinent criteria in s. 51(24) for the proper and orderly development of the subject property and can proceed by way of application for Consent.

82The Tribunal finds that Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA on May 22, 2025, is fair, reasonable, and appropriate and the wording of this condition is clear.

83The Tribunal finds Consent Condition 3 imposed by the CoA on May 22, 2025, represents good planning and in the public interest.

ORDER

84The Tribunal finds that the appeal is dismissed.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES

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.