Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001224

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) and 17(49.6) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: TWTH Development Inc.

Applicant: Evans Planning

Subject: Application to amend the Official Plan – failure to make a decision

Description: To facilitate the development of 33 single-detached residential units

Reference Number: OPA-2023-02

Property Address: 252 -272 Old Bloomington Road (Lot 6 and Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 166)

Municipality/UT: Aurora/York

OLT Case No: OLT-24-001224

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001224

OLT Case Name: TWTH Development Inc. v. Aurora (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 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 facilitate the development of 33 single-detached residential units

Reference Number: ZBA-2023-02

Property Address: 252 - 272 Old Bloomington Road (Lot 6 and Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 166)

Municipality/UT: Aurora/York

OLT Case No: OLT-24-001225

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001224

OLT Case Name: TWTH Development Inc. v. Aurora (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To facilitate the development of 33 single-detached residential units

Reference Number: SUB-2023-02

Property Address: 252 - 272 Old Bloomington Road (Lot 6 and Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 166)

Municipality/UT: Aurora/York

OLT Case No: OLT-24-001226

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001224

OLT Case Name: TWTH Development Inc. v. Aurora (Town)

Heard: September 15, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

TWTH Development Inc.

R. Cheeseman S. Fleming

Town of Aurora

P. De Sario

Antonio Ranieri, Christine Ranieri and Nikan Holdings inc.

M. McDermid

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a ten-day (10-day) Merit Hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by TWTH Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) under s. 17(24), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the Town of Aurora’s (“Town”) failure to make a decision within the statutory timelines on the Official Plan Amendment Application (“OPA”), the Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“ZBA”) and the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (“DPS”) otherwise known in this Decision as the “Applications” for the lands municipally known as 252, 260 and 272 Old Bloomington Road (“Subject Lands”).

2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Parties that a settlement had been reached and made a request that the Merit Hearing be converted to a Settlement Hearing.

3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Hearing on the terms of the settlement.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 17(24), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must conform to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), and in this particular matter, to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”), the York Region Official Plan, (“YROP”), the Town of Aurora Official Plan (“TOP”), and the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law No. 6000-17 (“ZBL”).

SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA

5The Subject Lands are located on the north side of Old Bloomington Road, approximately 678 metres (“m”) east of Yonge Street. The Subject Lands are generally rectangular in shape with an approximate area of 3.89 hectares (“ha”). The Subject Lands have a frontage on Old Bloomington Road of approximately 92 m and a depth of approximately 413 m.

6The Subject Lands are surrounded by urban development. To the north are estate detached dwellings, to the east and to the west, detached dwellings currently exist with ongoing redevelopment occurring which include the extension of municipal roads Calla Trail and Calla Gate. To the south are townhouse dwellings which form the municipal boundary of Richmond Hill.

7The Subject Lands are currently vacant, and an easement exists which provides access to the rear portions of the adjacent lands to the west.

BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATION

8The Subject Lands were staked out with the participation of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (“LSRCA”) on April 4, 2022. On May 31, 2022, a Pre-Submission Consultation request was made, and on June 28, 2022, a Pre-Submission meeting took place with included representatives of the Town Planning, Parks, Engineering, and Public Works departments, as well as Staff from LSRCA.

9In June 2023, the Applications were submitted to the Town which sought permission for 33 residential lots with an approximate density of 8.48 units per ha. The Applications were deemed complete on August 11, 2023. A community open house was held on November 2, 2023, and a Statutory Public Meeting was held on November 14, 2023. At the meeting of November 14, 2024, Town Council directed that the Applications be brought back for a second public meeting – which was not a requirement of the Act.

10Following the Public Meeting, a revised Application was brought forth which changed the proposal from 33 residential dwelling lots to 30 residential dwelling lots.

11A second Public Meeting was held on October 8, 2024. As a result of a failure of a decision to be rendered by the Town on the Applications, the Appellant filed appeals of the Applications to the Ontario Land Tribunal on December 6, 2024.

SUBMISSIONS

12On behalf of the Parties, the Appellant presented Mr. Adam Layton, the Appellant’s planner, who had been involved with the Application throughout its process. Mr. Layton was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the Application and Settlement before the Tribunal.

13Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents, and the Tribunal approved said documents as Exhibits to the hearing:

Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Adam Layton

Exhibit 2: Visual Evidence Book

Planning Evidence

[Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2_smooth) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

14Section 2 of the Act requires that the Applications before the Tribunal are a matter of provincial interest. It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the Applications are of provincial interest, as the Subject Lands are an appropriate location for growth and development. The Applications will make an efficient use of existing municipal services, and these services have the capacity to service the Subject Lands.

15Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the proposed stormwater services will help achieve the water balance targets of the Region of York. The Natural Heritage Evaluation and the Landform Conservation Study demonstrate that the ecological function of the area will be maintained though the Applications.

16Mr. Layton opined that the built form is well designed and includes a pedestrian oriented streetscape and will have a vibrant sense of place. Mr. Layton continued that the Applications will not create any negative impacts on the adjacent community and the Application have demonstrated to be transit supportive. The 30 single detached dwellings will contribute to the housing mix within the community and will improve the connectivity within the area and will allow for a contiguous network of travel options, both private and public.

[Section 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec51subsec24_smooth) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

17The Draft Plan of Subdivision Application must have regard to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the proposed subdivision is not premature and is consistent with the PPS, ORCMP, YROP, TOP and ZBL. The proposed residential lots would increase housing availability options in the area. The proposed lots sizes and dwelling types are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding housing types and the proposed design of the subdivision will protect the existing natural features on the Subject Lands.

18Mr. Layton opined that the Applications have proper regard for matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 and s. 51(24) of the Act.

PPS 2024

19It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the Applications are within the settlement area of the Town and will optimize the use of existing municipal services. The Subject Lands are located close to existing public transit routes and will make an efficient use of lands that are currently unoccupied of housing.

20Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the proposed single detached dwelling uses are currently permitted by the ORMCP, and the TOP and ZBA Applications would diversify the type of housing options while making use of an infill development that has been identified by the Town as being within a designated growth area and in a strategic growth area. Mr. Layton continued that the Applications before the Tribunal are consistent with the PPS 2024.

ORMCP

21Mr. Layton opined that the Subject Lands are located in an area of the ORMCP that are designated as a settlement area which are described as inter alia; “…areas designated for development of an urban type permitting a range of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses.”

22Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the purpose of settlement areas in the ORMCP is to focus and contain urban growth. This is accomplished by:

a. Encouraging community development with convenient access to a mix of employment, transportation options, local services, and a range of housing and public service facilities;

b. Minimize the encroachment and impact of development on the ecological functions and hydrologic features of the ORMCP area;

c. Promoting the efficient use of land with transit-supportive densities, through intensification and redevelopment within existing urban areas; and

d. Providing for the continuation and development of urban land uses consistent with the growth management strategies identified in the applicable official plans.

23Mr. Layton opined that the Applications before the Tribunal meets these criteria of a settlement area, as the Applications provide for a format of housing options that are needed in the area, will provide for an appropriate amount of vegetation protection and an appropriate form of stormwater management while keeping significant landform features by keeping the disturbance of landform character to a minimum.

24It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the Applications have demonstrated how they have conformed to the ORMCP.

YROP

25It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the YROP was deemed to be the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora on July 1, 2024, due to the removal of planning responsibilities as the regional level. The YROP identifies the Subject Lands as being located within the Urban Area of the Town. The proposal before the Tribunal will implement a compact built form and will support an efficient use of underutilized lands while maximizing existing municipal infrastructure and services.

26Mr. Layton continued to opine that the proposal will help increase residential density, which will in turn, help the Town reach the intensification targets as set out in the YROP. The proposal will also provide a diversification of housing options and will help create a complete community. As such, Mr. Layton opined that the proposal before the Tribunal conforms to the policies of the YROP.

27Mr. Layton gave opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal conforms to the policy direction in the YROP.

TOP

28It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the Applications predate the TOP 2024, and as such, the TOP 2010 is to be considered in this proposal. As stated previously, the Subject Lands are located in close proximity to public transit and the proposal will create housing options that will support the continued investment in public transit in the area. Mr. Layton continued to opine that the proposal will help create and expand the local road network within the block and will increase the housing density in the neighbourhood to create a safe pedestrian realm while minimizing travel times for pedestrians to local public transit.

29Mr. Layton opined that the Subject Lands are well-positioned for intensification as the lands are currently underutilized and still meet the TOP’s objectives of responsible growth management in an area within the Built Boundary that has access to public transit. Mr. Layton continued to opine that the proposal before the Tribunal permits an increase in density in an infill development that will maintain the character of the area while maintaining the protection of the natural features found on the Subject Lands.

30Mr. Layton gave opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal conforms to the TOP 2010 and to the TOP 2024.

Official Plan Amendment 48 Oak Ridges Moraine conversation Plan Conformity (“OPA 48”)

31Mr. Layton opined that the purpose of OPA 48 was to bring the TOP in conformity with the ORCMP. OPA 48 affects all lands within the Town, including the Subject Lands. Mr. Layton continued to opine that the Subject Lands are located within the Settlement Area, which permits urban development. However, Mr. Layton opined that landforms are to be maintained and the total area that is to be developed should be limited. Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal preserves the existing significant landform features and maintains the predominant landform character. Approximately 71% of the Subject Lands are to be disturbed for development, however, the general topography of the lands are to be maintained throughout the developed area. This, Mr. Layton opined, along with the portion of the lands that are to be given to public ownership (specifically Block 31), demonstrates how the proposal conforms to the purpose and intent of OPA 48.

Official Plan Amendment 34 Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (“OPA 34”)

32Mr. Layton gave opinion that OPA 34 covers approximately 600 hectares bounded generally by Bloomington Road to the south, Bayview Avenue to the east, Vandorf Sideroad/Rail Line to the north, and Bathurst Street to the west. The Subject Lands fall within the boundaries of OPA 34.

33Mr. Layton opined that the intent of OPA 34 is to guide the development of the Yonge Street South area as a low-intensity, environmentally sensitive, primarily residential precinct within the Town, where new development will occur on the basis of full municipal services.

34Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that while the proposed density exceeds the maximum density permitted in OPA 34 – which is a maximum of 5 units per ha – the proposal supports the Provincial, Regional and Municipal growth and development objectives by building a compact built form within the Built Boundary of the Town on underutilized lands with full municipal infrastructure available while located to a variety of transit options.

35It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the existing woodlot located on Block 31 will be conveyed to public ownership and no development will occur in this area. The proposal before the Tribunal remains consistent with the intent and purpose of OPA 34, as the proposal will permit development to occur that will still be considered low density while maintaining the environmentally sensitive woodlot in Block 31. Mr. Layton opined that the proposal maintains the purpose and intent of OPA 34 and represents good land use planning.

ZBL

36It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the Subject Lands are located within the Estate Residential (ER) Zone. The Zoning By-law Amendment requests to change the zoning to Detached Third Density Residential (R3). This zoning permits detached dwellings and second suite dwellings. Further minor zoning requirements were needed for certain proposed lot configurations and the front, side and rear setback requirements. As a result of these agreed upon changes, Mr. Layton opined that the proposal before the Tribunal conforms to the ZBL and should be approved by the Tribunal.

Participant Statements

37There were two Participant Statements received by the Tribunal concerning the matter before it. These statements were from Warren McClure and John Green. It was Mr. Layton’s opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal demonstrates it has satisfied or eliminated their issues inter alia concerning density, environmental impacts, built form, stormwater and traffic.

38Mr. Layton concluded his opinion by stating that the proposal before the Tribunal meets the applicable policy framework of the Province, Region and the Town. Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with single detached dwellings will be compatible with the existing uses and buildings abutting the Subject Lands. Mr. Layton continued with his opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal is a matter of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act, the proposal conforms to the YROP and the TOP and meets the general intent of the ZBL. The DPS has demonstrated that the proposal meets the applicable requirements of s. 51(24) of the Act, and the Tribunal finds that the DPS is not premature. The proposal before the Tribunal represents good land use planning and should be approved as presented.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

39Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the settlement provided by Mr. Layton, the Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal does have appropriate regard of matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

40The Tribunal finds that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the 2024 PPS. The proposal will help create a complete community by efficiently using underutilized parcels of land and maximizing the existing municipal services and making use of existing public transit.

41The Tribunal finds that the proposal conforms to the applicable policies of the ORMCP, YROP and to the TOP. The Tribunal finds that the proposal will provide needed housing options in a settlement area while protecting natural heritage landforms and features on the Subject Lands, providing a balance of development and a protection of natural heritage features for infill lands.

42The Tribunal finds that the requested changes to the ZBL are appropriate and will permit an appropriate form of housing to occur that will be compatible with the surrounding area.

43The Tribunal finds that the DPS has met the criteria as set out in s. 51(24) of the Act and the DPS is not premature. The Tribunal finds that the DPS conditions as presented are appropriate and should be attached to the DPS Application. The Tribunal finds that the Town has the authority to approve the satisfaction of the DPS conditions and will not require the Tribunal to provide a final authorization of the DPS conditions.

44The Tribunal is satisfied that the concerns of the Participants had been taken into consideration pertaining to the final proposal and that these concerns have been addressed and satisfied by the Parties.

45The Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal represents good land use planning and should be approved in the form presented before it.

ORDER

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and orders that the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora is modified, as follows, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The municipal clerk is authorized to assign a number to the amending By-law for this amendment to the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan.

47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of Aurora to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Draft Plan of Subdivision shown on the plan prepared by Mandarin Surveyors Limited dated August 18, 2025, comprising of Lot 6 and Part of Lot 7 of Registered Plan 166 of the Town of Aurora, as set out as Attachment 3 to this Order, is approved, subject to the fulfillment of the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval dated August 21, 2025, which are set out in Attachment 4 to this Order;

49AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of Aurora shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER

MEMBER

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

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4