Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 27, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001042
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit residential townhouse development
Reference Number: OR07/24
Property Address: 245 Riverbank Drive
Municipality: City of Cambridge
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001042
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001042
OLT Case Name: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. v. Cambridge (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd.
Subject: Appeal of decision - OPA/ZBA - Permit residential townhouse development
Description: To permit residential townhouse development
Reference Number: OR07/24
Property Address: 245 Riverbank Drive
Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001042
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001043
Heard: January 24, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. | R. Howe |
| City of Cambridge | N. Auty |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON JANUARY 24, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held to organize appeals by Intermarket CAM Phase 2 Ltd. (“Appellant”) against the decision by the City of Cambridge (“City”) to refuse applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) in relation to the property located at 245 Riverbank Drive (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant seeks to redevelop the Subject Property with multiple residential uses, including row and stacked townhouses. The potential design concept provided by the Appellant contemplates a cluster development of multiple unit residential buildings at a density of 49 units per hectare, resulting in a total of 109 residential units. The proposed OPA would redesignate the Subject Property from Rural Residential to Low/Medium Density Residential with a site-specific exception to increase the density to 55 units per hectare which would allow a maximum of 121 residential units. The proposed ZBA would rezone the Rural Residential and Agricultural and Aggregate Resource Area portions of the Subject Property to Multiple Residential with site-specific provisions to increase density to 55 units per hectare and permitting a maximum number of eight attached one-family dwelling units (eight-unit townhouse).
3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service dated December 23, 2024, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given, and no further notice will be required.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal initially received four written requests for Participant status. Robert Brown raised concerns with the proposed development, including density, compatibility, public health and safety in relation to vehicular access and traffic. With no objections, the Tribunal granted the request.
5Caroline Berch raised the same concerns as Mr. Brown along with heritage concerns and concerns in relation to public health and safety concerns resulting from a lack of infrastructure to support safe active transportation.
6On the morning of the CMC, Ms. Berch emailed the Tribunal to request a change in status to that of Party as opposed to Participant. Following a detailed explanation of the differences in the roles and obligations of Parties and Participants as set out in Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Ms. Berch confirmed that she simply wished to be granted Participant Status, which the Tribunal granted with no objections.
7John Knez indicated that he fully supported the statement provided by Ms. Berch but raised no new issues and simply noted the existence of another large housing development in the area. Similarly, the request of Jim and Janet Young simply reiterated support for the concerns as articulated in the status request of Ms. Berch.
8While the Parties had no objections to the granting of Participant Status to John Knez and Jim and Janet Young, the merit of an argument is not strengthened by repetition and duplicative confirmations of support for a general position or more specific concerns in relation to a planning application are of little assistance in the process of deciding upon a planning appeal. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal denied the requests of John Knez and Jim and Janet Young. Should the matter proceed to a hearing, the Tribunal will have the benefit of, and will consider as part of its ruling, the detailed concerns of both Robert Brown and Caroline Berch.
9No other individuals appeared at the CMC seeking status of any kind.
10At the end of the CMC, following the Tribunal’s previous rulings on requests for status and discussion with respect to other procedural matters to move this matter forward, Ms. Berch and Mr. Brown indicated they might wish to revisit their requests. Following a second detailed explanation of the roles and obligations of Parties and Participants pursuant to Rule 8, these individuals requested an opportunity to reflect upon the information provided and decide whether they wish to formally request a change in status from Participant to Party in advance of the next hearing event.
11Should either or both wish to do so, they are directed to submit a formal request no later than Monday, March 3, 2025 to the Tribunal and the statutory Parties. The request must include a detailed list of issues along with the number and disciplines of witnesses they intend to call at a hearing.
12To be clear, such requests will not be automatically granted but, rather, considered by the Tribunal at the next hearing event, at which time the statutory Parties will be afforded an opportunity to object to and make submissions on same.
NEXT STEPS
13Counsel for the Appellant advised that a revised application was submitted to the City the night before the CMC. He explained that the revised submission includes various detailed technical reports and attempts to address a number of the concerns raised by the City, including but not limited to density, housing type, natural heritage and transportation issues. As such, the Parties indicated that they were not in a position to provide a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) to the Tribunal and instead requested a second CMC or, alternatively, a short Telephone Case Conference for the purposes of discussing same and setting hearing dates.
14In light of the prospect of the Tribunal having to consider changes in requests for status as discussed above in paragraphs [10] to [12], the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC by video hearing on Wednesday, April 9, 2025.
15The Tribunal stressed the importance of ensuring that the next CMC is as productive as possible. To that end, the Parties were directed to submit a draft PO and Issues List no later than Monday, March 31, 2025. In addition, the Tribunal expects all Parties and prospective Parties (if applicable) to arrive at the next hearing event organized and prepared so that hearing dates can be scheduled. Should the Parties not be in a position to do so, they may make a request an extension of time for the submission of the draft PO and/or a rescheduling of the CMC through the assigned Case Coordinator.
16Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173
Access Code: 519-389-173
17Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
18Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free): 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is 519-389-173
19Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
20Recognizing that the Appellant has submitted a revised application and that the proceeding is in its early stages, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties with respect to their initial thoughts on opportunities for settlement and reminded of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation. The Parties acknowledged same but indicated that it was simply too early in the process to comment upon the possibility of settlement/mediation.
ORDER
21The case management directives above are so ordered.
22There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized but may be available for additional case management, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“S.Braun”
S. Braun
vice-chair
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.