Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 27, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001137
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Walton South Simcoe Residential Development Corporation c/o Far Sight Investments Limited.
Owner: Walton South Simcoe Residential Development Corporation
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To facilitate the development of 8 residential lots.
Reference Number: DEV 396
Property Address: Block 142 on Plan 51M-1053
Municipality/UT: New Tecumseth/Simcoe
OLT Case No: OLT-24-001137
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001137
OLT Case Name: Walton South Simcoe Residential Development Corporation. v. New Tecumseth (Town)
Heard: July 21 - 23, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Walton South Simcoe Residential Development Corporation c/o Far Sight Investments Limited
J. Meader A. Toumanians
Town of New Tecumseth
J. Feehely P. McKenna
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON JULY 23, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1On July 21, 2025 the Tribunal convened a Hearing of the Merits to consider an appeal by Walton South Simcoe Residential Development Corporation c/o Far Sight Investments Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) following the Town of New Tecumseth’s (“Town”) refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application in relation to Block 142 Plan 51M-1053 in the Community of Beeton (“subject property”).
2The appeal concerns the Town’s decision dated September 5, 2024 to refuse an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to amend Town Zoning By-law No. 2014-126 (“ZBL”) to rezone the subject property from “Open Space (OS)” to “Urban Residential – Exception (UR2-44)” (“original ZBA”), notwithstanding a positive Town Staff Report recommending approval of the ZBA application.
3The Hearing was originally scheduled as a one-day event to take place on May 7, 2025. On April 15, 2025, the Parties jointly requested that the one-day Hearing be adjourned and re-scheduled as a two-day Hearing to take place in July or August, 2025. The Tribunal granted the request and re-scheduled the Hearing to take place on July 21-22, 2025.
4At the commencement of the Hearing, the Parties jointly advised the Tribunal that two days may not be sufficient and requested that the Tribunal set aside July 23, 2025 to complete the Hearing, including closing submissions. The Tribunal granted the request.
5As this was the first and only appearance in this matter, the Tribunal confirmed that proper Notice was given and marked the Affidavit of Service of Victoria Peacock affirmed on May 1, 2025 as Exhibit 1. The Tribunal did not receive any requests for status in advance of the Hearing and confirmed that there were no individuals or entities in attendance at the Hearing seeking status.
6The Tribunal heard evidence from the following individuals, who were all qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning:
a. Gregory Barker, Innovative Planning Solutions, on behalf of the Appellant;
b. Derek Abbotts under summons by the Appellant. Mr. Abbotts is the Manager, Development Planning for the Town, and prepared the Staff Reports recommending approval of the ZBA application; and
c. Gordon Russell, G.H. Russell Planning and Development Services, on behalf of the Town.
7On the second day of the Hearing, Mr. Russell concluded his evidence in chief with a review of the draft ZBA, which had been revised since the original ZBA, and was appended to Mr. Barker’s Reply Witness Statement (“revised ZBA”). Mr. Russell stated that he would be supportive of the revised ZBA providing that it incorporated his suggested revisions. Given the change in opinion of the Town’s expert witness, the Tribunal and Counsel agreed to stand down the Hearing to allow the Parties time to engage in discussions aimed at resolving the appeal. After a brief break, the Parties requested that the Hearing be adjourned for the day in order to allow further time for continued discussions, and for Counsel to seek instructions from their respective clients.
8On July 23, 2025, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they were able to arrive at an agreement to resolve the issues under appeal and presented a further revised draft ZBA (“proposed ZBA”), attached as Attachment 1 to the Order, for the Tribunal’s consideration. Consequently, at the request of the Parties, the Tribunal converted the third day of the Merit Hearing to a hearing to consider a settlement proposal.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
Site Context and Changing Policy Regime
9In order to provide context, the somewhat complex history leading up to the Hearing is outlined briefly below.
10The original ZBA was filed at a time when the Town was undergoing a changing policy regime, thereby impacting which policies apply to the appeal. The subject property is designated ‘Settlement’ in Schedule 5.1 – Land Use of the County of Simcoe Official Plan (“COP”). The application for the original ZBA was made on April 6, 2020 and, at that time, a non-decision related to all lands identified as Urban Residential in the Settlement Area of Beeton, which included the subject property. The lands identified as Urban Residential in the Settlement Area of Beeton in Schedule B2 of the Town of New Tecumseth Official Plan (2019) (“TOP 2019”) came into force and effect on December 23, 2021 after a series of Tribunal appeals. Therefore the policies related to Urban Residential designations in TOP 2019 do not apply to the appeal, while the balance of TOP 2019 is applicable. In the interim, the Urban Residential policies in Town of New Tecumseth Official Plan 2010 (“TOP 2010”) and Official Plan Amendment No. 31 (Beeton Secondary Plan) (“OPA 31”) remain applicable1 to the appeal.
11The subject property is approximately 0.27 hectares, or 0.68 acres in total area, and is located on Strachan Trail which is a fully maintained local road. The subject property is designated ‘Low Density Residential’ under Schedule B2 of the TOP 2010, which is one and the same as Schedule A to OPA 31. It is zoned ‘Open Space (OS)’ in the Town of New Tecumseth Zoning By-law No. 2021-128.
12The subject property is located within Phase 1 of the West Country Subdivision and is described as Block 142, Plan 51M-1053 which was registered on June 8, 2015 following the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval by the Ontario Municipal Board (now the Tribunal) dated March 4, 2011 (“Draft Plan”). The subject property (Block 142) and Block 143 (“Pitel Park”) were to be conveyed to the Town as part of the Parkland dedication requirements pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement for Phase 1, Plan 51M-1053 Plan of Subdivision (“Subdivision Agreement”). Pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement, Pitel Park was conveyed to the Town and has been built out for park purposes. Since registration of Phase 1, all lots have been built upon, save and except for the subject property.
13Located to the north of the subject property are Stormwater Management (“SWM”) ponds, trails, and a tributary of the Nottawasaga River. These lands are designated ‘Urban Residential’ and zoned ‘Open Space (OS)’ and ‘Environmental Protection (EP)’.
14The subject property is a corner lot and immediately east and south of the subject property is Strachan Trail and on the opposite side of Strachan Trail are single detached dwellings. These lands are designated and zoned ‘Low Rise Residential 26 (LR-26)’.
15West of the subject property are single detached dwellings and located further west/southwest is Pitel Park. The lands to the west are zoned ‘Low Rise Residential 26 (LR-26)’.
16The lands and dwellings to the east, south and west of the subject property have all been developed as part of the same Draft Plan.
Application Timeline
17The original ZBA application was filed with the Town on April 6, 2020. The Notice of Complete Application was circulated to internal departments and external agencies on April 24, 2020 and a public meeting was held on September 16, 2020. Over the next few years, the Appellant worked with Town Staff and the public to address comments and concerns, and this process included a public open house hosted by the Appellant on October 19, 2023.
18On April 19, 2024, Planning Staff requested comments from internal staff on the revised proposal and the options presented. All of these efforts culminated in Staff Report #PD-2024-18 dated July 22, 2024 (“final staff report”) which was prepared for the Committee of the Whole meeting. The final staff report presented two options for consideration of Council, both of which include the dedication of the 2.5 hectare land to the north for a proposed community trail:
a. Option 1: Original eight (8) lot proposal with the removal of the parkette block; or
b. Option 2: revised four (4) lot proposal with a smaller parkette block.
19The recommendation of Town Staff to Council was to approve Option 1 and the ZBA application. The Town issued a Notice of Refusal dated September 5, 2024, and the Appellant appealed this refusal to the Tribunal on September 25, 2024.
Conversion to a Hearing to Consider a Settlement Proposal
20Over the first two days of the Hearing, the Tribunal heard considerable contested evidence and submissions from the Parties surrounding the consistency and conformity of the revised ZBA to the applicable legislative tests. The Tribunal heard evidence that the ZBA is required to permit single detached dwellings which are not a permitted use by the ZBL for lands zoned ‘Open Space (OS)’. Mr. Barker explained that the proposal to rezone the subject property to ‘LR-44H’ was to ensure consistency with the bulk of the land surrounding the subject property, which is zoned ‘LR-26’ in Phase 1 and ‘LR-44’ in Phase 2.
21As noted in paragraph [7] above, towards the end of the second day of the Hearing during his evidence in chief, Mr. Russell opined that, based on the viva voce testimony of the Appellant’s witnesses, he would be supportive of the revised ZBA providing that it included a provision limiting uses to low-rise single and semi detached residential. He took the Tribunal through the revised ZBA and provided his suggested changes, including the inclusion of a Holding Provision with three conditions.
22Mr. Russell testified that if his recommended revisions to the revised ZBA were acceptable, then it would be his opinion that the revised ZBA has proper regard for the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”) and conforms to the relevant policies of the COP, TOP 2010, TOP 2019, and OPA 31. He further recommended that the Tribunal approve the ZBA on the premise that his suggested revisions were incorporated into the revised final draft ZBA.
23As a result, the Parties stood down to determine if a draft form of ZBA could be agreed upon by all Parties.
24At the commencement of the third day of the Hearing, the Parties jointly advised that they had reached an agreement and presented the Tribunal with the proposed ZBA and suggested that the summonsed planner, Mr. Abbotts, be recalled to provide opinion evidence on the proposed ZBA. The Tribunal agreed with the suggested approach and converted the third day of the Merit Hearing to a hearing to consider the settlement proposal.
25Mr. Abbotts explained that the proposed ZBA was revised from the prior drafts of the ZBA to, inter alia, include the following:
a. rezone the subject property to ‘LR-44H’, which would be consistent with the zoning currently in place in the subdivision and would maintain the purpose and intent of the ‘LR-44’ zone;
b. restrict permissions to single detached dwellings and carry forward the permission for additional residential units;
c. include the special provision that the Environmental Protection Zone shall not apply thereby not restricting development;
d. include a Holding Provision that will be considered for removal by Town Council when the following are completed:
i. the Town and the Appellant have entered into a development agreement which includes the release of the subject property by the Town in accordance with the process set out in s. 8.3 of the Subdivision Agreement; and
ii. the determination by the Town of water and sewer supply availability to support the proposed development.
26Mr. Abbotts reviewed the proposed ZBA and opined that it meets the intent of the original application and complies with all applicable legislation, policies, represents good planning and is in the public interest. He noted that the proposed ZBA was very similar to the revised ZBA which was before the Tribunal at the commencement of the Hearing and given the similarities, the viva voce evidence he provided was transferrable to the proposed ZBA.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
27Throughout the Hearing, the Tribunal heard references to the subject property currently being in receivership. Counsel for the Town emphasized that the Town’s consent to the proposed ZBA, as appropriate for development of the subject property, does not preclude the Town from examining the issue of ownership, including whether the subject property should be conveyed to the Town. The Tribunal confirms that any rights under the Subdivision Agreement which the Town may or may not pursue are not before the Tribunal in this Appeal, nor are they within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this appeal. To be clear, the decision and Order in this appeal in no way resolves any outstanding ownership issues between the Appellant and the Town.
28In considering the appeal before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed ZBA has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, demonstrates consistency with the PPS, conforms with the COP, and applicable policies of the TOP 2019 and the TOP 2010, including OPA 31. The Tribunal must have regard to the decision made by the Town Council and the information/material considered by it in the course of making that decision and be satisfied that the proposed ZBA is representative of good planning in the public interest.
29Counsel for the Appellant phrased the application aptly during opening submissions stating that the subject property is within a settlement area and a registered Plan of Subdivision where residential development is permitted pursuant to the Official Plan. The Tribunal finds that the development facilitated by the proposed ZBA rounds out the existing neighbourhood with gentle intensification, thereby having regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest in s.2 of the Act, including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. The subject property is the last remaining undeveloped piece on the Draft Plan and approval of the proposed ZBA will allow the completion of Phase 1.
30The Tribunal heard that the subject property is a relatively small plot amidst a larger built up area. Approval of the proposed ZBA constitutes an efficient use of existing land and infrastructure, consistent with policy 2.2 of the PPS. Policy 3.6 of the PPS speaks to sewage, water, and stormwater. While the Functional Service Report found that the existing stormwater management facilities could accommodate flows from the proposed development, it did confirm Town Engineering’s comment that there was currently no water allocation to service the proposed development until the Collingwood Treatment Plan was completed. In order the address this issue, the proposed ZBA includes a Holding Provision which requires confirmation of sewer and water availability for the subject property prior to any development occuring. Based on the opinions expressed by Mr. Abbotts and Mr. Barker, the Tribunal is persuaded that the Holding Provision in the proposed ZBA relating to water and sewer availability alleviates concerns that were raised regarding lack of water availability to service the subject property, if developed. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS.
31The proposed development is within a settlement area and as such, the objectives set out in policy 3.5 of the COP are relevant in considering the proposal. In this case, the proposed development conforms with policy 3.5 objectives as it focuses growth in a settlement area (policy 3.5.1), represents a compatible compact urban form making use of existing land and infrastructure (policy 3.5.2), contributes to vibrant and healthy settlements and communities that are sustainable (policy 3.5.3), and is located in an existing subdivision that minimizes land consumption and servicing costs (policy 3.5.4) while being in proximity to existing amenities and support services (policy 3.5.5). The subject property is designated settlement in the COP and these areas are to be the focus of population and employment growth. Residential uses are to be developed within settlement area boundaries on land designated in local municipal official plans for such use. The subject property is appropriately designated in the COP and as such, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA conforms to the COP.
32The Tribunal heard evidence that, if developed, the proposal conforms with the goals set out in the relevant policies of the TOP 2010, including directing development to areas designated residential which are serviced by municipal services and, further, facilitating the provision of a moderate rate of growth while maintaining the scale and character of the existing community.
33Originally, the Parties were at odds regarding the density calculation for the subject property and the Tribunal heard considerable conflicting evidence on density policies relating to the subject property. As set out in the final staff report which was reviewed by Mr. Abbotts in his viva voce evidence, he opined that the maximum net residential density for lands designated low-density residential on Schedule A to OPA 31 is 14 units per hectare, which was consistent with Mr. Barker’s calculation. At the conclusion of his testimony, Mr. Russell testified that the subject property is a small parcel and he acknowledged that it is difficult to say that the intent of 14 units per hectare would need to apply on lands that are well below hectare levels in terms of land area. He noted that the subject property has remained vacant for many years and that it is in conformity with the density policies. The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Barker and Mr. Abbotts who each provided opinions that the net residential density conforms to the TOP 2010 and, as such, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development does not require an official plan amendment.
34Town staff acknowledged that the subject property was not required for a park or parkette and, in fact, the Town was moving away from creating small parkettes in favour of larger parks. The Draft Plan has a dedicated park block, Pitel Park, which is the focal point of the Draft Plan and is a large park located within 200 metres of the subject property. The Tribunal was persuaded that the existing parkland and recreational opportunities which the proposed development makes use of is in conformity with policy 2.6 of TOP 2019 which provides direction on recreation, parks, open spaces and cultural facilities. The Draft Plan was planned to ensure community services were available in close proximity for residents, especially the centrally located Pitel Park,. Further, policy 9.6.1.8 of OPA 31 provides direction on the provision of parks and open spaces ensuring parkland has a functional relationship with the community and, in this case, Pitel Park fulfils this requirement and serves as a focal point in the Draft Plan.
35The subject property sits amidst an already developed subdivision and the proposed ZBA will adopt the regulations which apply to the existing subdivision thereby maintaining the character of the area and ensuring compatibility. The Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA which facilitates the proposed development maintains the character of the existing community as it seeks to permit similar zoning exceptions and built forms similar to those portions of the approved Draft Plan. The use of similar zoning exceptions ensures that if the subject property is developed, it will be consistent with the surrounding built up area. The Tribunal finds that overall, the proposed ZBA conforms with the relevant polcies of TOP 2010, TOP 2019, and OPA 31.
36The Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA rounds out the area with gentle intensification in a settlement area, where growth is directed. As set out above, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA is consistent with and conforms to all relevant provincial and municipal policies and represents good planning in the public interest.
ORDER
37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and directs the Municipality to amend By-law No. 2021-128 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authroizes the Municipal Clerk of the Town of New Tecumseth to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY
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.
ATTACHMENT 1