Rice v. Clarington (Municipality), 2026 CanLII 22816

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 11, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000321

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

Appellant: Andrew Rice

Appellant: Vanstone Mill Inc.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 136

Description: To update the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan to include a mix of building types and densities that will accommodate 6,000 new residential units

Reference Number: COPA 2023-0002

Property Address: All lands within the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000182

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000182

OLT Case Name: Rice v. Clarington (Municipality)

Heard: January 21, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Municipality of Clarington	Mark Joblin
Andrew Rice	Calvin Lantz Caroline Jordan (in absentia)
Vanstone Mill Inc.	Katarzyna Sliwa Doug Pateman
Kristian Shepherd	Calvin Lantz Caroline Jordan (in absentia)
Nicholas Garacci and Jaime Yamanaka	Calvin Lantz Caroline Jordan (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON JANUARY 21, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to appeals filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Andrew Rice (“Rice”) and Vanstone Mill Inc. (“Vanstone”) regarding the decision of the Municipality of Clarington (“Municipality”) to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 136, being the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”).

2The Appeals are as follows:

• Appeal #1 – filed by Andrew Rice, owner of 207, 209 and 215 King Street East, 4 St. George Street South, and 4 and 6 Queen Street, (Bowmanville) Clarington;

• Appeal #2 – filed by Andrew Rice, owner of 139 and 151 Wellington Street, 194-196, 198, 200, 204, 208, and 212 Church Street, and 35 Scugog Street, (Bowmanville) Clarington (together with Appeal #1 “Rice Appeals”); and

• Appeal #3 – filed by Vanstone, owner of 116 King Street West, (Bowmanville) Clarington (“Vanstone Appeal”).

CMC – DECEMBER 2, 2025

3Notice was confirmed at the last CMC, and the Tribunal was satisfied that proper notice has been provided and deemed that no further notice is required for the appeals.

4The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party status to Kristian Shepherd, and jointly to Nicholas Garacci and Jaime Yamanaka with respect to Appeal #2, with the issues to be sheltered under to be finalized at the third CMC.

5Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (“CLOCA”) requested non-appellant Party status concerning the Vanstone Appeal. The Tribunal noted that under Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal Rules the CLOCA would have to shelter under the Vanstone issues. With the agreement of CLOCA, the determination of its status request was deferred to the third CMC.

6Regarding the Rice Appeals, the Municipality indicated an expectation to advance discussions once the Issues List is finalized and did not anticipate the need for Tribunal-led mediation but is open to it if the Appellants are.

7Counsel for Vanstone and the Municipality indicated that they had reached a settlement in principle and that the settlement documents would be filed with the Tribunal, the Parties and with CLOCA by December 20, 2025, providing CLOCA the ability to raise any concerns ahead of the third CMC.

8Counsel for Vanstone submitted that policy 4.2.8 of the Secondary Plan (“Policy 4.2.8”), which directly relates to natural hazard matters of interest to CLOCA, may remain an issue separate from the settlement and would likely be dealt with on a site-specific basis. Vanstone is not opposed to CLOCA’s party status request subject to it being scoped to issues related to Policy 4.2.8.

CMC - JANUARY 21, 2026

9Regarding the Vanstone appeal, the Tribunal was informed that the Municipality and Vanstone had reached a settlement in principle and were prepared to present it.

10The Parties indicated that the settlement materials were provided to the Tribunal and shared with CLOCA who were granted Party Status. Counsel for CLOCA indicated that they are not opposed to the settlement proposal and only have a specific interest in natural hazard policies specific to the Subject Lands.

11Regarding the Rice appeals, the Tribunal heard submissions from Counsel for Rice and the Municipality, which are summarized here:

• Set aside ten days for a merit hearing near the end of 2026 or early 2027; it is anticipated that each Party would bring one or two witnesses; Vanstone will continue as a Party in a monitoring capacity; the CLOCA requested that it be involved if Vanstone’s interests are affected during these proceedings.

• Counsel for Rice requested that the hearing be conducted in person, in Clarington. The Municipality preferred that it be heard by video but indicated it would not object if the hearing is scheduled to be heard in Clarington;

• Counsel for Rice initiated a request for Tribunal led mediation which the Municipality supported;

• Counsel for Rice indicated that his client is in the process of selling land to Lakeridge Health with a planned closing date of March 31, 2026. It was noted that the purchaser has an option to extend the closing up to a year and, if this happened, the scheduled hearing dates would have to be adjourned. If the deal closes as expected, it is anticipated that four issues may be removed, and three issues further scoped.

• Document disclosure has been requested by Counsel for Rice. Counsel for Rice indicated that he may seek a Motion for Disclosure, if needed. The Municipality indicated that the request is being reviewed and that a response would be provided in February.

• Counsel for Vanstone indicated that they will maintain Party status to the Rice appeals is to facilitate a “watching brief”. It was also agreed by the Parties to notify the CLOCA should any relief contemplated in these proceedings might affect the Vanstone lands and/or the Vanstone settlement with the Municipality. The Tribunal also directs that should Vanstone wish to make substantive submissions or should Vanstone tender any evidence in the Rice appeal proceedings, the CLOCA may respond to, and make submissions limited to, any issues raised by Vanstone in the context of its watching brief.

• The Parties to the Rice Appeals are to submit the final draft Procedural Order to the Case Coordinator by Wednesday, February 4, 2026.

CMC – Monday, April 27, 2026

12A fourth CMC is scheduled to commence on Monday, April 27, 2026, beginning at 10 a.m. by video conference.

13The Tribunal directs the Parties to provide a proposed agenda for the CMC to the Case Co-Ordinator by Monday, April 13, 2026. The CMC may be converted or adjourned as requested by the Parties.

14The Tribunal received a draft procedural order (“PO”) and has reviewed and approved it. It is attached as Schedule 1 and will govern the proceedings leading up to and including the hearing.

15Parties are asked to log in to each event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901;

Access Code: 914-098-901

16Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above.

18Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

19The Parties are reminded of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation and of the expectation that they are to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

20As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

Hearing of the Merits – Monday, November 30, 2026 (for 9 days)

21The Tribunal set a 9-day Merit Hearing to proceed in person appearance on Monday, November 30, 2026, at the Clarington Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario beginning at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not sit on December 7, 2026.

SETTLEMENT – VANSTONE AND MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

INTRODUCTION

22The Vanstone Appeal pertains to the property municipally known as 116 King St. West, located on the North-west corner of King St. West and Scugog Street in (Bowmanville) Clarington (“Subject Lands”).

23The Subject Lands are within the Bowmanville Urban Area and are designated ‘Urban Centre’ and ‘Environmental Protection Area’ in the Municipality’s Official Plan (“MOP”), which permits a range of residential and commercial uses.

24The Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands as ‘Street Related Commercial Area.’

25The Vanstone Notice of Appeal indicates concern with how specific policies related to their property may be interpreted or applied, as they could limit a proposed development and potentially result in the need for an official plan amendment application in the future. The Notice of Appeal raises planning issues related to consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS 2024”) and conformity with the Region of Durham’s Official Plan (“RDOP”) and the MOP.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

26Vanstone and the Municipality arrived at a Settlement in Principle regarding these matters, which were endorsed by the Clarington Planning and Development Committee on October 20, 2025, and approved by the Municipal Council on October 27, 2025.

27The proposed Settlement includes revisions to specific policies and Schedules in OPA 136.

28Briefly summarized, the policy modifications agreed to by the Parties are the following:

• Permit dwelling units below the ground floor as part of a Mixed Uses Building.

• Permit standalone residential buildings as part of a larger mixed-use development.

• Language to allow greater flexibility regarding setbacks from King St. and front yard setbacks to Scugog Street.

• Encouragement of Affordable Housing will be removed and included in other policies.

• Added clarity regarding future public trails near Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek “valleylands”.

• Removal of the Subject Lands from Secondary Plan maps as they were included in error.

• Deletion of “conceptual future trail network north of King St.” from Schedule C of the Secondary Plan to remove any unintended perception regarding the location of future trails.

29Policy 4.2.8 sets conditions for development and redevelopment within the valleylands and the Parties agree that “site-specific” analysis to inform development decisions for this site is the best way forward. The Parties agreed to adjourn Vanstone’s appeal of Policy 4.2.8 ‘sine die’ and that issues related to this policy be resolved with future site-specific development applications.

LEGISLATION

30When adjudicating an official plan appeal the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendments:

a) Are consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the PPS 2024)

b) Conforms with the applicable official plans, in this case, the RDOP

c) Represents good planning.

31The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the information and materials that the Municipal Council received in relation to the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Planning Act.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

32In support of the proposed settlement, the Appellant filed an affidavit sworn by Scott Waterhouse, dated January 12, 2026, which was marked as Exhibit 2. He is a land use planner retained by the Appellant. He also provided oral testimony at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

33Neither the Municipality nor the CLOCA provided evidence at the settlement hearing. They both indicated support for the proposed settlement.

34The CLOCA said that it supports the proposed settlement with the removal of Policy 4.2.8. It confirmed that it has continued interest in any future development applications for the Subject Lands, given its location within the floodplain near Bowmanville Creek, which is a tributary of the Soper Creek sub-watershed.

35Planner Waterhouse said that the proposed policy modifications/revisions are to the Secondary Plan as a whole and may impact the Subject Lands in the future. He indicated that there have been no submissions from the public indicating concerns for the proposed amendments.

36Planner Waterhouse reviewed the specific policy changes reflected above in paragraphs [27] to [29], and it is his opinion that the revisions conform to and are consistent with provincial policies, plans and lower tier policies.

37Planner Waterhouse opined that the amendments to OPA 136 are consistent with PPS 2024 as they support development in an existing settlement area and allow for efficient use of public transit and facilities in the area.

38Planner Waterhouse said that the OPA 136, as amended, conforms with the RDOP, given that it will facilitate “compact and appropriate mixed use and residential development” within the Urban Centre.

39Regarding Section 2 of the Act, he stated that the proposed amendments support orderly development of safe and healthy communities, provide a range of housing options and are in an appropriate location for growth and development.

40The proposed amendments support residential development on the Subject Lands and represent good planning according to Planner Waterhouse.

FINDINGS

41Based on Planner Waterhouse’s uncontroverted expert opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA 136, as amended, is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms with the RDOP. The Tribunal finds that it has regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act. In making these findings, the Tribunal has had regard to the information and materials that the Municipal Council received in relation to the matter. The Tribunal finds that OPA 136, as amended, represents good planning.

ORDER

Rice Appeals:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

42The dates and particulars of the fourth Case Management Conference and Hearing of the Merits are set out above, between paragraphs [12] to [21].

43The Procedural Order included with this decision as Schedule 1 is hereby approved and in full effect.

44The Member is not seized and no further notice is required.

Vanstone Mills Inc. Appeal:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

45Non-appellant Party status is granted to Central Lake Ontario Conservation.

46The Vanstone appeal is allowed in part and Official Plan Amendment 136 to the Official Plan for the Municipality of Clarington as set out in Schedule 2 to this Order is approved.

47Vanstone’s appeal of Policy 4.2.8 is adjourned sine die.

48Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal hereby retains jurisdiction to consider and approve modifications to any policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, associated text, etc., approved herein but still under appeal by appellants other than Vanstone, as may be appropriate to dispose of any of such outstanding appeals by other appellants before the Tribunal, in accordance with section 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

49The Tribunal may be spoken to by the Parties with respect to the implementation of this Order.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM

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 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000182

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

Appellant: Andrew Rice

Appellant: Vanstone Mill Inc.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 136

Description: To update the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan for creating an area with various densities mixed use buildings to accommodate 6,000 residential units

Reference Number: COPA 2023-0002

Property Address: Various addresses within the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000182

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000182

OLT Case Name: Rice v. Clarington (Municipality)

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 Hearings

2. The video access information for the Case Management Conference (Monday, April 27, 2026) and the Hearing of the Merits (beginning on Nov. 30, 2026 in person), both beginning at 10 a.m. is as follows:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901;

Access Code: 914-098-901

The Parties will notify the Tribunal no later than Monday, April 13, 2026 whether the Case Management Conference is still required, and provide a proposed agenda to the Tribunal.

3. The hearing will begin on Monday, November 30, 2026 at 10 a.m. at the Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario. The Hearing will be held for 9 days. The Tribunal will not sit on December 7, 2026.

The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 9 days. 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the Case Management Conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see below for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. On or before Monday, September 21, 2026, the Parties will advise whether any issues on the Issues List are not proceeding to adjudication. Otherwise, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 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.

7. 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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

8. 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 Tuesday, August 4, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 22 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.

9. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, September 11, 2026 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 Monday, September 21, 2026.

10. 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 12 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.

11. 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 12 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 12 below.

12. On or before Friday, October 2, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

13. On or before Friday, October 2, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

14. On or before Monday, October 26, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

15. On or before Friday, November 6, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, November 1, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, November 16, 2026.

18. 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.

19. 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 at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

20. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, November 23, 2026 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.

21. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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.

22. 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.

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Parties

1. Municipality of Clarington
2. Andrew Rice
3. Kristian Shepherd (Issues # 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18)
4. Nicholas Garacci/Jamie Yamanaka (Issues # 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18)
5. Vanstone Mill Inc.

Participants

None

ATTACHMENT 2

Hearing Issues

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Secondary Plan – General & Site Specific Issues

Development of Complete Communities

1. With respect to the scale of development and the appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas:

a. Is it appropriate to specify minimum densities in ss. 5.4.2, 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 for each residential land use classification of low, medium and high density in the Secondary Plan, without maximum density limits?

b. In s. 5.3.3 of the Secondary Plan, is it appropriate to specify a minimum residential density for all lands designated Mixed Use Area in three Character Areas, in aggregate?

i. Does the use of “in aggregate” cause uncertainty given that ss. 6.8.6(d) and (e) of the Secondary Plan provides that a series of landmark buildings over 12 storeys in height may be established at the height peak on the Goodyear Lands and the policies do not specify a maximum height or density?

ii. Alternatively, what is the appropriate policy wording that would maintain a minimum density threshold for remaining undeveloped/underdeveloped properties within the Mixed Use Area designation once the minimum residential density target for all lands in aggregate is met?

c. Are Secondary Plan ss. 2.1, 3.3.4, 5.1.4 and 6.2.5, that require development to transition to existing built form, appropriate given the stated goals and objectives of the Secondary Plan for building height, density and built form in the East Business District area under ss. 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 6.8.3 of the Secondary Plan? Should the policy be revised to require transition between land use policy designations?

2. In light of ss. 23.5.1 and 23.5.2 of the Official Plan, should ss. 12.1.4 and 12.1.5 of the Secondary Plan be deleted as being duplicative and causing ambiguity? Should policies be added to the Secondary Plan that provide guidance in relation to allowing existing uses to be maintained, providing opportunities for adaptive re-use and accommodating gradual growth and change as envisioned in s. 2.1 of the Secondary Plan?

Use, Built Form, Density and Height

3. Where development is to be guided by the following policies of the Secondary Plan in ss. 3.3.4, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, and 6.8.3, do the medical campus policies in ss. 3.3.2 and 5.3.11, add certainty and consistency in terms of permitted uses, built form, density, height and setback policies?

4. Is it appropriate and is there justification for specifying that the lands on either side of King Street East, between Liberty Street and Simpson Avenue (an area of approximately 8.25 hectares) be identified as an area encouraged for the development of a medical campus in s. 5.3.11?

5. With respect to the planned heliport referred to in ss. 12.1.8 and 12.1.9 of the Secondary Plan:

a. Is the standard of “no negative impacts” the appropriate standard to be applied in the assessment of potential impacts of development on the function of a heliport?

b. Is it appropriate that the development limitation is 9 storeys of building height given the variation in topography within 1000 metres of the Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital and that the height of a storey is not defined? Alternatively, should the maximum building height have been measured as an elevation provided in Canadian Geodetic Height?

6. Can the minimum density of 150 units per net hectare permitted by s. 12.1.17 of the Secondary Plan be achieved considering:

a. the meaning of the phrase “per net hectare” and how land area is calculated?

b. the means by which density is calculated in light of, but not limited to, the road takings in ss. 9.3.1, 9.3.2 and 9.2.11?

c. the notwithstanding policies that apply, including ss. 6.8.4e) and 6.8.5c) and the implementation policy s. 12.1.6?

d. the built form guidance of the applicable Urban Design Guidelines?

What modifications to applicable Secondary Plan policies are appropriate to allow the minimum density in s. 12.1.17 to be achieved?

7. Is it appropriate for s. 5.3.9 of the Secondary Plan to implement a blanket prohibition on all stand alone residential buildings, subject to only one exception, in the Mixed Use Area designation?

Housing Options

8. Do ss. 8.3.2 and 8.3.6 of the Secondary Plan provide appropriate certainty for developers? Is s. 8.3.7 of the Secondary Plan ultra vires of the form and content of an Official Plan according to the provisions of the Planning Act?

Transportation Systems

9. Is the extent of the widening for Scugog Street, north of King Street, appropriately shown on Schedule “C” or described in ss. 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 of the Secondary Plan [or the Arterial Road design criteria or policies of the Official Plan] such that there is certainty and clarity about the maximum width of the lands required for this particular highway widening in accordance with subsections 41(8) and 41(9) of the Planning Act?

10. Is it appropriate to impose the generic arterial road right-of-way width requirements identified in Appendix C to the Official Plan to Scugog Street, north of King Street, as specified by ss. 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 of the Secondary Plan? Alternatively, should the design of Scugog Street follow a context-sensitive approach that accounts for existing urban conditions, physical constraints and minimizes impacts on adjacent properties?

11. Should the Secondary Plan state that takings for road widenings be shared equally by landowners on both sides of a road allowance? With particular regards to:

a. Scugog Street, north of King Street; and

b. St. George Street South.

What policy modifications to the Secondary Plan are needed to provide appropriate guidance on how road widenings will be achieved?

12. Is it reasonable and appropriate for s. 9.2.11 of the Secondary Plan to require the conveyance of additional land for road widenings such as for grading, drainage, storm water management, auxiliary turn lanes, transit provisions and utilities, in light of s 19.3.3 of the Official Plan and Appendix C – Road Classifications in the Official Plan?

13. Does s. 9.2.11 conform with subsections 41(8) and 41(9) of the Planning Act where the taking of lands for a road widening may be greater than the extent of the widening specified for a particular highway shown or described in the Secondary Plan [or the Official Plan]?

Active Transportation Network

14. Is the designation of “Potential Future Municipal Cycling Infrastructure” on Schedule “C” appropriate in advance of the municipality completing a comprehensive study that demonstrates there is demand or will be demand for such cycling infrastructure in such locations, whether it is feasible to physically provide such infrastructure within the road allowance in such locations and whether the designation and the infrastructure has or will have an influence on the use and development of abutting lands?

15. Are the active transportation policies in ss. 9.8.1, 9.8.2 and 9.8.3 of the Secondary Plan premature and/or appropriate?

Cultural Heritage

16. Is the wording of Section 12.1.16 appropriate and consistent with the intent of Section 4.6.5 of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024?

17. Does s. 12.1.16 of the Secondary Plan cause uncertainty because there is no explanation of what engagement means, what engagement should entail, how to satisfy the obligation and does the requirement for engagement occur too early in the archaeological assessment process?

Anomaly

18. Is the designation of the lands located to the west of Scugog Street, immediately south of the boundary of the Secondary Plan, as High Density Residential in the Secondary Plan:

a. in conformity with the Region of Durham Official Plan, as approved on September 3, 2024?

b. appropriate given the natural heritage features and the Conservation Authority’s regulation of such lands?

c. appropriate and justified given the potential impacts High Density Residential development may have on lands in the vicinity, including transition and compatibility in terms of built form and density impacts?

ATTACHMENT 3

Order of Evidence

1. Municipality of Clarington
2. Andrew Rice
3. Kristian Shepherd
4. Nicholas Garacci/Jamie Yamanaka
5. Vanstone Mill Inc. (if needed)
6. Municipality of Clarington, in reply if any

ATTACHMENT 4

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
Monday, April 27, 2026	Case Management Conference (if needed)
Monday, September 21, 2026	Deadline to advise of issues not proceeding to adjudication
Tuesday, August 4, 2026	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, CVs included)
Friday, September 11, 2026	Expert witness meeting deadline
Monday, September 21, 2026	Agreed Statements of Facts and Issues to be filed
Friday, October 2, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Monday, October 26, 2026	Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time
Monday, November 1, 2026	Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)
Friday, November 6, 2026	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Monday, November 16, 2026	Finalize & submit Joint Document Book
Monday, November 23, 2026	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
Monday, November 20, 2026	Hearing commences (9 days – Tribunal will not sit on December 7, 2026)

Schedule 2

Approved modified policies of the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan

5.3.6 Permitted residential dwelling types include:

a) Dwelling units either below or above the ground floor within a mixed use building; and

b) Apartment buildings.

5.3.9 Standalone residential buildings are only permitted in the Mixed Use area as part of a larger mixed-use development that is planned and developed comprehensively.

6.8.2 Development in the Historic Downtown will:

a) Permit buildings with a minimum height of 3 storeys and a maximum height of 6 storeys;

b) Locate the greatest heights within the Historic Downtown along Church Street and Scugog Street, with lower-scale development along King Street;

c) Generally maintain a minimum 1.0 metre front yard setback and/or match the front yard setbacks of adjacent buildings, where appropriate; and

d) Establish a minimum 3.0 metre stepback above the established streetwall for buildings fronting King Street.

8.3.6 Fully deleted

8.3.7 Fully deleted

9.8.6 A number of extensions to the trail network are proposed to enhance connectivity with existing trails within both the Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek valleylands. Trails serve as a key form of off-street connectivity and provide opportunities for a range of recreational activities. These future extensions are identified in Schedule C. In addition to the future extensions identified in Schedule C, the Municipality will explore options for a trail on public lands within the Bowmanville Creek valleylands north of King Street.

Schedules A, B, C Revised Secondary Plan boundary to omit Vanstone lands west of the creek.

Schedule C Conceptual trail north of King Street is deleted.