Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000236

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 2789526 ONTARIO LTD.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To facilitate site plan for 11 townhouses

Reference Number: SP2-21

Property Address: 128 Cecil Street L3W 0K4

Municipality/UT: Essa/Simcoe

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000236

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000236

OLT Case Name: 2789526 Ontario Ltd. v. Essa (Township)

Heard: August 18-19, and August 27, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

2789526 Ontario Ltd. c/o Saldan Homes Inc.

Kristie Stitt Ira Kagan (in absentia)

Township of Essa

Paula Lombardi

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON AUGUST 27, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was scheduled as a three-day Merit Hearing relating to an appeal under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Appeal”) as the result of a Township of Essa (“Township”) failure or refusal to make a decision regarding a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) deemed complete on February 29, 2024. The Appeal was submitted by 2789526 Ontario Ltd. (“Appellant” / “Applicant”) and is related to the municipal address known as 128 Cecil Street L3W 0K4 (“Subject Site”).

2The Appellant, who acquired the Subject Site in January 2024, is seeking approval of the SPA allowing permission to construct eleven townhouse units on the currently vacant land. The townhouse units are proposed with a height of two-storeys, single car garages, and contain a mix of three bedrooms (“Proposal”). The Proposal is accessed by a 10 metre (“m”) private road entrance from Cecil Street, containing private outdoor amenity space and landscaping, with a total lot area of approximately 1.09 hectares (“ha”), and a lot frontage of 10 m on Cecil Street. There is a frontage of 145 m along Brentwood Road (County Road 10), with a 0.3 m reserve along the County road allowance which restricts access to the County Road, without the County of Simcoe’s (“County”) approval.

3The Proposal is an existing permitted use and conforms with the County Official Plan (“COP”) and the Township Official Plan (“TOP”), subject to the extension of services. Any conditions to be considered by the Tribunal are deemed to be subject to s. 45(7) of the Act, under the SPA process.

4On the second day of a three-day scheduled Hearing on the Merits, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved all outstanding issues, and requested the matter be reconvened as a hearing to consider a Settlement Proposal (“Settlement”), on the agreed-upon date of August 27, 2025, commencing at 3 p.m. by video conference.

BACKGROUND PRE-HEARING/SETTLEMENT

Case Management Conference

5At the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on May 28, 2025, Chaired by this Tribunal Member, there were no written Party or Participant status requests, and no issues or concerns were raised with respect to the Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing, which is circulated to the Applicant and Township Clerk, in accordance with requirements of the Act.

6The CMC Decision (issued on May 30, 2025) also reflected that there were no Status requests. The CMC Decision also directed that a further one-hour Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) for Friday, June 6, 2025, be scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. The TCC was expected to consider a final Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), after the Parties made efforts to scope issues. No status requests were brought forward to the Tribunal in the lead up to the scheduled TCC.

7At the request of the Parties, the TCC was cancelled, and the three-day Hearing was confirmed by the Tribunal, by way of a further Decision (issued on June 13, 2025), along with an approved PO and IL (which included a total of six issues). In the interim, the Parties participated in Tribunal-led mediation which did not result in a resolution of the Appeal.

RECORDING AND PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

8On the first day of the scheduled Hearing, the Tribunal briefly considered a recording request from Rhonda Hilsden-White, (area resident) who indicated that she was not able to remain present for the duration of the three-day Hearing.

9The Tribunal denied the request on the basis that the Hearing is readily accessible as a virtual Video Hearing, from anywhere on any electronic device, and reaffirmed that: a recording of hearing events is prohibited, which includes taking or attempting to take a screenshot, photograph, video or any other recording, or dissemination of any recording, of any proceedings of the Tribunal, unless specifically authorized by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also referenced that this requirement is in accordance with Rule 22.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, noting that contravening the prohibition against any recording constitutes an offence under s.29(3) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act and is subject to a fine if convicted (of up to $25,000 on conviction).

10The Tribunal also acknowledged receipt of several late written Party and Participant status requests from area residents, as follows:

• Alexander and Lilli Adam (74 Edenbridge Drive), who were not present at the Hearing, submitted a written Party Status form requesting an appeal of the SPA (dated August 5, 2025), and requesting that Andy Lee (Neighbour) act as their representative at the Hearing;
• Andy Lee - Participant Status request (August 5, 2025);
• Kim McDonald - Participant Status request (August 1/5, 2025);
• Rackele Passalacqua – Participant Status request (August 5, 2025);
• Rhonda Hilsden-White (August 1, 2025); and,
• Monika Elliott, as represented by Ms. Hilsden-White (who did not fill out a Participant status form).

11The Tribunal allocated a reasonable length of valuable, previously-scheduled Hearing time to consider these late requests for Party and Participant status, having carefully reviewed the correspondence in advance of the Hearing, and welcomed submissions from Counsel for both Parties, relating to these requests.

12Some of these issues of concern included but were not limited to: overdevelopment resulting in drainage problems and flooding; traffic, parking, sidewalk, and safety provisions; fire and emergency access; snow/garbage removal and/or storage; tree-cutting and impact on natural heritage; sewer location and easement; privacy, fencing, laneway, and street lighting; and the prospect of multiple-tenancy issues.

13Counsel for the Appellant submitted that these status requests should be denied for various reasons including that:

a) The status requests have been submitted 2.5 months too late and should have been received 10-days prior to the first CMC on May 28, 2025. Furthermore, despite having been informed by the Township of the first CMC, and that the public was welcome to attend, no one made an appearance, or submitted a status request at that time;

b) Neighbouring landowners (non-appellant “Third Parties”) are not normally part of a SPA Appeal process under the Act;

c) The PO/IL issued on June 13, 2025, did not contemplate additional Party/Participant statements because there were none at that point, and the TCC that was scheduled, was also cancelled at the request of the Parties, because agreement was achieved on the PO/IL;

d) Numerous issues have already been resolved between the Parties, as outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), and any attempt to raise a number of new issues, may be highly prejudicial;

e) Finally, the Tribunal should have regard to its past practice of ensuring that this SPA process is one exclusively between the Applicant and the Township and cites the former Executive Chair Hubbard and Member Lee who explained the reasoning for this in their decision for 1341665 Ontario Ltd. v. Toronto (City). At paragraph [5] they state:

5The plans, drawings or requirements thereof are matters of micro-management of the site whose land use and performance standards are in most cases determined and set. They are not matters of a nature arising from the first principles of land use or considerations implying a larger concern beyond the immediate environ of the site. Additionally, the Act recognizes, in dealing with the site details, the singular and exclusive role of public agencies to act on behalf of all members of the public in this process.

[emphasis added]

14In addition to the above, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that new issues had been raised by the requesting Participants that would need to be addressed in Reply Witness Statements and oral testimony, despite the Township never having raised them, including:

• Proximity to Mad River;
• Improper grading;
• Noise concerns;
• Structural issues;
• Location of sewers;
• Traffic congestion;
• Maintenance issues;
• Concern that townhouses have an increased risk for fires occurring;
• Driveway length (which complies with ZBL);
• Commercial vehicles and moving vans being able to ingress and egress the site;
• Raised crosswalk (requested by the Township);
• Manhole locations; and
• Location of central garbage area.

15Counsel for the Township did not object to the Status requests, noting the inherent challenges associated specifically with an SPA appeal, and deferred to the Tribunal for its determination.

16As the Tribunal considered these requests, it noted important elements of s.41 of the Act, generally and specifically related to the unique nature of an SPA appeal, and determinations of Party status in accordance with the Tribunal Rule 8.1, referenced below for the benefit of the general public as follows:

Tribunal Rules

8.1 Role and Obligations of a Party Subject to Rule 8.2 below, a person conferred party status to a proceeding before the Tribunal shall participate fully in the proceeding, and by way of example may:

a. Identify issues arising from a notice(s) of appeal for the approval of the Tribunal;

b. Bring or respond to any motion in the proceeding;

c. Receive copies of all documents and supporting information exchanged, relied upon or filed in connection with any hearing event conducted in the proceeding;

d. Present opening and closing submissions at the hearing;

e. Present and examine witnesses and cross-examine witnesses not of like interest;

f. Claim costs or be subject to a costs award when ordered by the Tribunal; and

g. Request a review of the Tribunal’s decision or order as set out in Rule 25.

Section 41(12) of the Planning Act

Appeal to Tribunal re approval of plans or drawings

(12) If the municipality fails to approve the plans or drawings referred to in subsection (4) within 60 days after they are received by the municipality, the owner may appeal the failure to approve the plans or drawings to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the local municipality a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal. 2017

Appeal to Tribunal re requirement under subs. (7) or (8)

(12.0.1) If the owner of the land is not satisfied with any requirement made by the municipality under subsection (7) or by the upper-tier municipality under subsection (8) or with any part thereof, including the terms of any agreement required, the owner may appeal the unsatisfactory requirements, or parts thereof, including the terms of any agreement required, to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the local municipality a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 3, s. 13 (1); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 80 (1).

Record

(12.0.2) If the clerk receives a notice of appeal under subsection (12) or (12.0.1), the clerk shall ensure that the following are forwarded to the Tribunal within 15 days after the notice is filed:

1. The notice of appeal.

2. The fee.

3. The plans and drawings submitted for approval under subsection (4).

3.1 Any information or material required under subsections (3.3) and (3.4).

4. In the case of an appeal under subsection (12.0.1), documents that set out the requirements made by the municipality under subsection (7) or by the upper-tier municipality under subsection (8), as the case may be.

(12.1) The Tribunal shall hear and determine the matter in issue and determine the details of the plans or drawings and determine the requirements, including the provisions of any agreement required.

[emphasis added]

17Based on the above, the Tribunal denied the request for Party status from Alexander and Lilli Adam, citing the common Tribunal practice that Party status is generally confined to statutory Parties. However, as a courtesy, the Tribunal did consider Alexander and Lilli Adams’ written submissions in the context of all other Participant status requests.

18Having carefully considered submissions from legal counsel for the statutory Parties, the Tribunal determined that the common issues of concern from these written requests, were also generally consistent with previously referenced Township concerns at the CMC, relating to the SPA, and form part of the PO/IL as approved on June 13, 2025.

19Therefore, all Participant status requests were also denied at this late stage in the process, to avoid any prospect of prejudice to the proceedings, and the Hearing proceeded in the normal course.

Revised Issues List

20Parties advised the Tribunal on consent, that Issues #1 a. to c. had been resolved, and that the first sentence in Issue #2, could also be removed. The Tribunal agreed to consider the following Issues as modified below:

2. Is there sufficient area to engage in snow clearing and removal activities along the ingress / egress route being proposed?

3. Is the proposed ingress / egress (entrance / exit) to the Site appropriate and does it meet the Township’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Manual?

a. Is there sufficient area provided on the Site to accommodate emergency vehicles and private waste collection trucks and does it provide sufficient vehicular turn around on the site for these vehicles?

b. Has the County permitted ingress / egress for emergency access onto Brentwood Road (County Road 10)?

4. Is a variance required from the County of Simcoe to allow the stormwater management facility to be situated within the County’s required 15 m setback from the County Road?

5. Have all the required studies, drawings, and plans (the “Reports and Plans”) required to support the Site Plan Application been submitted and do the Report and Plans meet the Township’s requirements including the Township’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Manual, including but not limited to the following?

a. Traffic Study update to include the applicable parking requirements;

b. Revised drawings to meet the Township’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Manual;

c. Revised drawings to meet the County’s requirements, by-laws and specifications.

6. Are the Site Plan Approval conditions being proposed by the Township appropriate for the Proposed Development, including but not limited to the following?

a. Is a condition requiring confirmation of the availability of Municipal Water Capacity to be confirmed prior to any development occurring on the Subject Land appropriate, represent good planning and in the public interest?

EXHIBIT LIST

21The Tribunal commenced the Hearing and identified the following Exhibits for its consideration:

1. Joint Document Book (“JDB”) (August 13, 2025);

2. Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) (July 30, 2025);

3. Appellant - Witness Statement Compendium (August 11, 2025);

4. Appellant – Land Use Planning Visuals and Landscaping Plan (August 11, 2025);

5. Township - Witness Statement Compendium (August 14, 2025);

6. Township – Samuel Haniff Reply Witness Statement (August 11, 2025);

7. Township - Record Of Public Consultation (August 12, 2025);

8. Revised Site Plan – (filed with Township on AUG.12, 2025).

9. Township – 1989 Engineering Standards (Excerpt – section 3.8)

10. Minutes of Settlement – (August 27, 2025)

11. Settlement Schedule A – Final Site Plan Drawings (August 27, 2025)

12. Settlement Schedule A - Engineering Drawings (August 27, 2025)

13. Settlement Schedule B – Conditions (August 27, 2025)

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

22In determining a SPA appeal filed pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act, the Tribunal is to consider the submitted plans or drawings according to the provisions of s. 41(4) of the Act.

23The Tribunal is to also have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority received in relation to the matter, in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act.

24Section 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters are to be consistent with the policy statements related to municipal planning and conform with any provincial plans that are in effect. In this case, this Decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

25The Tribunal noted that under s. 41(7) of the Act, SPA conditions that may be applicable, were as follows:

Conditions to approval of plans

(7) As a condition to the approval of the plans and drawings referred to in subsection (4), a municipality may require the owner of the land to,

(a) provide to the satisfaction of and at no expense to the municipality any or all of the following:

1. Subject to the provisions of subsections (8) and (9), widenings of highways that abut on the land.

2. Subject to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, facilities to provide access to and from the land such as access ramps and curbings and traffic direction signs.

3. Off-street vehicular loading and parking facilities, either covered or uncovered, access driveways, including driveways for emergency vehicles, and the surfacing of such areas and driveways.

4. Walkways and walkway ramps, including the surfacing thereof, and all other means of pedestrian access.

4.1 Facilities designed to have regard for accessibility for persons with disabilities.

5. Facilities for the lighting, including floodlighting, of the land or of any buildings or structures thereon.

6. Walls, fences, hedges, trees, shrubs or other groundcover or facilities for the landscaping of the lands or the protection of adjoining lands.

7. Vaults, central storage and collection areas and other facilities and enclosures for the storage of garbage and other waste material.

8. Easements conveyed to the municipality for the construction, maintenance or improvement of watercourses, ditches, land drainage works, sanitary sewage facilities and other public utilities of the municipality or local board thereof on the land.

9. Grading or alteration in elevation or contour of the land and provision for the disposal of storm, surface and waste water from the land and from any buildings or structures thereon;

(a) maintain to the satisfaction of the municipality and at the sole risk and expense of the owner any or all of the facilities or works mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of clause (a), including the removal of snow from access ramps and driveways, parking and loading areas and walkways;

(b) enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with and ensuring the provision of any or all of the facilities, works or matters mentioned in clause (a) or (d) and the maintenance thereof as mentioned in clause (b) or with the provision and approval of the plans and drawings referred to in subsection (4);

(c.1) enter into one or more agreements with the municipality ensuring that development proceeds in accordance with the plans and drawings approved under subsection (4);

(d) subject to subsection (9.1), convey part of the land to the municipality to the satisfaction of and at no expense to the municipality for a public transit right of way.

HEARING EVIDENCE

26The following witnesses were properly affirmed and duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in their respective areas of practice, and appeared in the following order:

Appellant

1. Kristine Loft – Land Use Planner (Principal, Loft Planning Inc.);

2. Thomas You – Transportation Engineer (Project Manager, WSP Canada Inc.); and,

3. Jeff McQuaig – Civil Engineer (Principal, Gerrits Engineering Ltd.).

27The Township expert witnesses, Al Lees (Engineering Technologist) and Samuel Haniff (Land Use Planner), were not required to testify due to the resolution of the issues and the scheduled reconvening of the Tribunal to consider the Settlement.

HEARING AND SETTLEMENT EVIDENCE

Subject Site History and Overview

28There are four single-family dwellings to the east of the Subject Site, which were created through the approval of four consent applications in 2009, by the Township Committee of Adjustment (“COA”). The consent applications resulted in the creation of four new residential lots along Cecil Street (130, 132, 134 and 136 Cecil Street) and the retained lot (128 Cecil Street). There are approximately eleven single-family dwellings that abut the Subject Site to the south. There are also numerous additional single-family dwellings to the southwest and further south across from Edenbridge Drive (Exhibit 7, pg.3).

29On Day 1 and Day 2 of the Hearing, the three witnesses for the Appellant provided fulsome oral testimony in their respective areas of expertise, and during cross-examination from the Counsel for the Township. Late in the afternoon on Day 2, the Parties advised of the resolution of all outstanding issues, and the matter was scheduled to reconvene on August 27, 2025.

30The oral testimony from Ms. Loft, which mostly occurred during the first two days of the Hearing, provided a very detailed factual/overview of the history of the Subject Site and the various iterations in the lead-up to the Revised Site Plan, submitted on July 29, 2025, (Exhibit 11), and carried over during the Tribunal’s consideration of the Settlement.

31Ms. Loft testified that the Subject Site is within an existing subdivision that was registered in the 1990s and the current lot was created via Consent application by the Township COA, with the support of Township Planning staff.

32Ms. Loft noted that her services were ongoing between the previous landowner (Yanch Homes Inc.) commencing in September 2023, at which point she was further retained by the new landowner and current Applicant in November 2024. The Tribunal noted at the outset that, as-of-right, the Appellant could apply for building permit with ten townhomes, without a SPA.

33Following a previous eleven, and then twelve townhome Site Plan iterations, by Yanch Homes Inc., a revised SPA was submitted by the new owner and current Applicant in late December 2024, seeking permission to construct eleven townhomes. As previously mentioned, the SPA was deemed complete by the Township on February 29, 2025.

34The entire development envelope is situated to the east of the EP Zone, which also extends to a portion of the lands to the north of Brentwood Road, which appears to contain two, single-family dwelling units. Extending east of Cecil Street is a large, fully-developed subdivision of homes with a large commercially-zoned (C2) component on the south-east corner of Brentwood Road and Cecil Street.

35Ms. Loft opined generally and specifically, that:

the proposed Site Plan is appropriate and desirable in land use planning terms and should be approved. The Application complies with the Township's Zoning By-law 2003-50 (the "ZBL") and in accordance with section 24(4) of the Planning Act, the ZBL is deemed to conform to the Township's Official Plan.

36It was also her opinion that:

the Application is consistent with and advances the policy direction set out in the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 ("PPS 2024"). From an intensification perspective, the proposal will support the achievement of numerous policy directions by promoting intensification on a vacant parcel of land within the built-up urban area and by advancing the optimization and efficient use of land. (Exhibit 3, TAB 1H).

37Ms. Loft further opined that the Proposal conforms to the COP and the TOP (Exhibit 3, TAB 1, para.40 and 41), and additional evidence of this is referenced immediately below.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

38The ASF (Exhibit 6) notes in greater detail, the history and pertinent characteristics of the Proposal, and for the benefit of the reader, the Tribunal has summarized some important contextual elements that are pertinent to the Subject Site including that:

1. It is within an existing plan of subdivision, which has been registered since the 1990s, and is presently vacant;

2. It is designated 'Residential-Future' in the TOP, also within a built boundary and the COP identifies Angus as a Settlement within the County;

3. Zoning is 'Residential, High-Density, Apartments' (R5) and EP in the Township By-law No. 2003-50, as amended ("ZBL"). The proposed development shall comply with the ZBL;

4. Snow clearing/storage, waste management, and other maintenance will be the responsibility of the private owner, and not the Township;

5. Will have a cumulative snow storage area that is approximately 19% of the total area that requires snow clearing;

6. Will consist of a total of 11 townhomes, with parking provision of 22 spaces, plus 5 visitor spaces (inclusive of 2 barrier-free spaces), and is compliant with the ZBL and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”) requirements;

7. Is subject to County By-law No. 5604 (“CBL”) which applies to setbacks from Brentwood Road, except for any exceptions approved by the County, and that the County does not support a permanent (non-emergency) access (egress) on to Brentwood Road, resulting in the only permanent (non-emergency) access from Cecil Street.

Emergency and Maintenance Access

39The County appears to maintain a firm position regarding the matter of #7 noted above, despite best efforts by the Appellant to seek resolution of this at a meeting with the County on February 19, 2025. Furthermore, the County Road setback requirement of 15 m must be the subject of a separate Variance application, expected to advance to Township Planning staff, following Tribunal determinations of this Appeal. The Parties further concurred that this Variance setback process, subject to Planning staff approval, is the appropriate next step required in the building permit approval process.

40Regarding the related transportation engineering and access elements, Mr. You testified extensively on the first day of the Hearing. He noted that the Hammerhead (“HH”) design is used quite commonly in other municipalities, and in fact, the Tribunal identified its acceptability, within the Township’s own Engineering Specifications (Exhibit 4, pg. 133, 10.4.1, Maintenance Access) where a “dead-end access may be provided with a [HH] turning area of 4 m by 17 m with a 12 m centreline turning radius.”

41The Settlement Conditions (Exhibit 13 - Schedule B) allow further opportunity for dialogue between the Parties and the County, providing some additional flexibility for reconsideration of this important issue. Notwithstanding this, the final Site Plan (Exhibits 11 and 12 – Schedule A), forms part of the Settlement between the Parties, reflecting the HH design in the SPA, which will not be altered, except for the County’s agreement to allow emergency access (egress) to County Road 10 (Brentwood Road).

42Ms. Loft also testified that the Settlement Conditions require further Traffic Study updates, and reiterated her support of the Schedule B Conditions, that were resolved during the Hearing and made evident as part of the Settlement, as proposed.

43No further amendment would be required as part of a Final Order requested by the Parties, if the Appeal were to be allowed.

Municipal Water Capacity

44This issue became evident in the Planning Staff Report (Exhibit 4, TAB 44) as referenced above. Mr. McQuaig opined extensively on matters related to the Site Plan and Civil Engineering, and the Settlement reflects his extensive knowledge around the provision of: Municipal Water Capacity, in his detailed design documents (Exhibit 3, TAB 5); Storm and Sanitary design below the Public Laneway; Storage, Fire Flows (Exhibit 1, JDB pg. 844); and recent Hydrant test results. In his conclusions, Mr. McQuaig asserted that the Proposal is supportable and predominantly complies with present-day design standards.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

45Having regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal finds the Proposal represents an appropriate development of the Subject Site. The Subject Site: is well-situated for the level of intensification proposed; is well-served by existing municipal infrastructure; is properly-zoned for the intended use; and will increase the supply and range of housing types available within Township.

46The Application effectively represents some additional orderly development of the neighbouring community, on a vacant parcel of land, and contributes to meeting the housing demands in the Township. The Tribunal finds that the townhome built-form, respects the adjacent land use context within the parameters of the established zoning standards, and as contemplated for the development of the Property.

47With the benefit of the extensive, uncontroverted evidence presented during the Hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal has appropriate regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, and conforms to the COP and the TOP.

ORDER

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal by 2789526 Ontario Ltd. is allowed, in part, and the Site Plan (including Engineering Plans) as prepared by Gerrits Engineering Ltd., dated August 12, 2025, set out below in Schedule A to this Final Order, is hereby approved;

49THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Site Plan (including Engineering Plans), as prepared by Gerrits Engineering Ltd., set out below in Schedule A to this Final Order, is also hereby approved subject to the Conditions of Site Plan Approval as set out below in Schedule B to this Final Order;

50The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in connection with the implementation of this Final Order, including any matter related to the clearing of the Conditions of Site Plan Approval.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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.

SCHEDULE A

SCHEDULE B