ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2025

CASE NO.: OLT-25-000002

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Eiram Development Ltd

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To re-designate and rezone the subject lands to create a mixed use residential development.

Reference Number: COPA2024-0004

Property Address: SW Corner Mearns Avenue (SW Corner Mearns Avenue and Concession Road 3)

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000002

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000002

OLT Case Name: Eiram Development Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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

Description: To re-designate and rezone the subject lands to create a mixed use residential development.

Reference Number: ZBA2024-0010

Property Address: SW Corner Mearns Avenue (SW Corner Mearns Avenue and Concession Road 3)

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000003

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000002

BEFORE: YASNA FAGHANI, MEMBER Monday, the 21st day of July 2025

THESE MATTERS having come before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for a public hearing on March 28, 2025, being subject to a decision issued on April 14, 2025;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order on consent of all the parties;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the requested draft Procedural Order, on consent;

NOW THEREFORE

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached hereto as Schedule “1” is in full force and effect.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN ACTING REGISTRAR

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.

SCHEDULE 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HEARING

2. The video hearing will begin on September 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at:

3. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077 Access Code: 927-921-077

4. The hearing is set for 7 days starting September 3 to September 15, 2025. The Tribunal will not sit on September 8, 2025. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

5. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 to this Order (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

6. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. With the exception of removal or narrowing of the issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits and/or the parties’ consent to the changes. A party who asks for changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.

7. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

8. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

9. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website at (https://olt.gov.on.ca/guides-videos/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before June 20, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before June 27, 2025.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before July 2, 2025, if required, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 15, 2025.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before July 9, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before July 9, 2025 a participant shall provide copies of their participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before July 28, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before August 20, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence after the evidence is received, on or before July 21, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 20, 2025.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal on or before August 20, 2025 that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before August 20, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically to the Tribunal, the parties and participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable should it request same. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

June 20, 2025 Witness List to be delivered June 27, 2025 Deadline to serve Motion to Challenge Witnesses July 2, 2025 Experts’ meeting to be held on or before this date July 9, 2025 Expert Witness Statements to be delivered July 9, 2025 Participant Statement to be delivered July 21, 2025 Reply Witness Statement to be delivered July 28, 2025 Deadline to Advise OLT if all hearing dates required August 15, 2025 Experts’ Agreed Statement of Facts to be filed August 20, 2025 Joint Document Book to be filed August 20, 2025 Visual Evidence to be delivered August 20, 2025 Hearing Plan to be filed

ATTACHMENT 2

Parties

1. Eiram Development Ltd
2. The Municipality of Clarington

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. It is acknowledged that the parties may refer to policies other than those set out above in providing a response to the Issues.

1. Do the applications have regard to matters of Provincial Interest identified in Section 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (p), (q), (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and in particular policies 2.2.1 (a), 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.6.1 (a) and (b)?

3. Do the applications conform with the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), including: a. Does the proposal conform with section 3.1.18(a) to (c) given the absence of affordable housing being proposed as part of this development? b. Does the proposal conform with section 3.1.20 given no affordable to low and moderate income households are proposed? c. Does the proposal conform with section 3.3.3 (d) and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed development is compatible with and will integrate with the surrounding land uses and built form?

4. Do the applications conform with the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan (consolidated 2024 version), including: a. Does the proposal conform to Table 4-3 and has the appellant demonstrated the need to double the maximum permitted height for development along local corridors in an existing neighbourhood? b. Does the proposal conform to section 5.2.6 and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed building design and space do not negatively impact adjacent buildings or detract from the specific identity or character of the area? c. Does the proposal conform to section 5.4.1 and has the appellant demonstrated that this proposed development will be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the established neighbourhood, be consistent with the built form of the neighborhood, and have regard to expectation for high-quality architectural design and sustainable building materials, and have they maximized opportunities to improve accessibility, pedestrian and cycling systems, neighbourhood and transit connections, and to reduce energy, water and resource use? d. Does the proposal conform to section 5.4.1 and 9.4.5 and has the appellant demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impact from the proposed 12 storey mixed-use apartment building to the surrounding low density neighbourhood? e. Does the proposal conform to section 10.6.2 and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed development is comprehensively developed along the local corridor to provide for residential and/or mixed use developments with a wide array of uses in order to achieve higher densities, transit oriented development, other uses that are complementary to the intended function of the corridor; and site design that is sensitive to the existing neighbourhoods? f. Does the proposal conform to section 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 and has the appellant demonstrated that the public square is required outside of a Neighbourhood Centre and that it will be designed as a high quality and interactive urban environment that offers appropriate paving, landscaped areas, benches, refuse containers, bicycle stands, lighting, public art and other elements that enhance the social and physical environment. g. Does the proposal conform to section 10.6.3 and has the appellant demonstrated that the density and built form of the proposed development, within the local corridor incorporates and is sensitive to existing local character scale, incorporates measures to protect and enhance natural heritage features, and creates a public realm that accommodates a range of higher density residential uses, complimented by compatible retail, service and institutional uses? h. Does the proposal conform to section 18.3.7 and has the applicant demonstrated that the public square is highly visible from the dominant street frontage and can support activities year round such as cultural events, public art, farmer’s markets, and small scale outdoor activities/games? i. Section 23.10.1 states that parkland dedication will be a condition of development or redevelopment or the approval of a plan of subdivision. Is it appropriate to determine the parkland dedication requirements for the proposal in accordance with sections 23.10.3 or 23.10.4 when the final determination of the appropriate land uses for the site have not been established? Is it premature to issue the conditions for a site plan application when the land uses and densities have not been approved, and a site plan application has not been submitted. j. Does the proposal conform to section 23.10.4 (b), (c) given that the amount of parkland dedication does not result in a sufficient area for park development, and the dedication of land has been deemed unnecessary? k. Does the proposal conform to section 23.10.6 and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed privately owned public space will be free of encumbrances?

5. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the above noted applicable policies of the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington?

6. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide adequate direction for the preferred built form and function of the proposal, including through detailed provisions for height, density, massing, setbacks, amenity spaces, parking, and access, for the purpose of achieving good planning and for the purpose of advancing the Site Plan process if the appeal is allowed?

7. Does the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment provide adequate direction for public spaces as set out in Clarington’s, Council approved, Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan as set out in Section 3.2 and Table 2?

8. Does the proposed development meet the applicable technical standards for low impact development (LID), groundwater infiltration and water balance assessments as set out in Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks Environmental Guideline: Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual Sections 1.5, 3.0 and 4.0?

9. Have the impacts of on-site parking been adequately studied, and will the impacts be appropriately mitigated as per the Clarington Official Plan, Appendix, table C-2?

10. Should the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, as is standard practice in the Municipality of Clarington, be subject to a holding provision that requires the landowner to address, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, the following matters: a. services and municipal works; b. measures to protect natural areas; c. measures to mitigate the impact of development; d. submission of technical studies; e. remediation of contaminated soil, if necessary; and f. legal agreements with the Municipality, the Region and any other agency (i.e. subdivision, site plan, servicing).

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

1. Eiram Development Ltd
2. The Municipality of Clarington
3. Eiram Development Ltd (Reply, if any)