Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 16, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000610
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(43) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Eden Oak (Camperdown) Inc.
Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision
Reference Number: 42T-2018-06
Property Address: Part of Lot 26, Concession 6 N
Municipality/UT: The Blue Mountains/County of Grey
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000610
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000610
OLT Case Name: Eden Oak (Camperdown) Inc. v. Grey (County)
Heard: March 9, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Eden Oak (Camperdown) Inc.
G. Borean
Town of The Blue Mountains County of Grey
S. Rouleau D. Baker (in absentia) S. Rouleau E. Treslan (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON MARCH 9, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Eden Oak (Camperdown) Inc. (“Appellant”) against the decision of the Grey County (“County”) Committee of the Whole (“COW”) that is limited to Condition No.19 (“condition / C19”) of the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) approval, pursuant to s. 51(43) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at Part of Lot 26, Concession 6 North (“subject property / site”).
2The Appellant feels that the C19 of the amended conditions “That the Owner agrees to address required upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road to the satisfaction of the Town of The Blue Mountains” should not be the responsibility of the Appellant.
3Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved all their issues in dispute.
4There were no status requests for this Hearing.
5Lauren Jeffrey, a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (“MCIP”), the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and a Registered Professional Planner (“RPP”), was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal.
6Ms. Jeffrey delivered a detailed, contextual, land use planning rationale in support of the settlement.
SITE CONTEXT
7Ms. Jeffrey stated that the subject property is located in the Old Lakeshore Neighbourhood area, at the south-east quadrant of the intersection of Camperdown Road and Highway 26. The site has approximately 389.6 metres of frontage along Old Lakeshore Road, is 6.61 hectares in size and is currently vacant. The subject property has natural vegetation throughout, and its south portion contains significant slopes, forming part of the Nipissing Ridge.
8To the north of the subject property are single detached residential dwellings and vacant land across Old Lakeshore Road. To the east are vacant lands with frontages along Old Lakeshore Road and undeveloped residential land, including extensive forested areas. To the west of the site is located a recreational trail and vacant residential lands at the corner of Old Lakeshore Road and Camperdown Road. And to the south is a low-rise residential subdivision, with ongoing construction for new residential dwellings. A recreation trail exits immediately south of the subject property.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
9Ms. Jeffrey explained that her employer, Innovative Planning Solutions (“IPS”), first was retained in 2017 by Rompsen Investment Corp., the previous owners of the subject property. After the acquisition of the site by the Appellant, IPS was retained in 2021, to provide land use planning advice for the subject property.
10The initial DPS application was submitted in 2018. It proposed to create 34 residential lots for single-detached dwellings fronting a private/condominium road. As a result of a Community Consultation meeting and a statutory Public Meeting, the initial application was amended showing 33 residential lots on a new public/municipal road.
11On March 8, 2021, the Old Lakeshore Road Neighbourhood Plan was adopted by Council resolution.
12Following Staff Recommendation Report PDS.22.056 dated May 24, 2022, The Town of The Blue Mountains (“Town”) Council voted in support of the approval of the DPS for 33 residential lots with a new municipal/public road and the conditions to Draft Plan Approval (“DPA”).
13The DPS application was given draft approval by the County COW on July 14, 2022. On July 22, 2022, the Notice of Decision (“Notice”) of DPA was circulated along with a copy of the decision. July 14, 2025 was outlined in the Notice as the draft approval lapse date.
14Ms. Jeffrey become involved in the process in 2024, as IPS’s retainer was extended to prepare a DPS extension application and, in addition, to include expert witness testimony and evidence in relation to the appeal.
15In March of 2025, a DPS Extension application was submitted, requesting a three-year extension to allow for additional time to fulfill conditions of the County Subdivision File No. 42T-2018-06 (“File”).
16In July of 2025, the County circulated the Notice of Decision, outlining that the DPS has been given revised draft approval, with revised draft plan conditions at the request of the Town and a lapse date of July 14, 2028.
17The purpose of the appeal is to determine whether C19 is reasonable and appropriate in the context of the approved DPS.
PLANNING RATIONALE
18The planning policy documents related to the appeal are the Act, Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), County Official Plan (“COP”) and Town Official plan (“TOP”).
19Ms. Jeffrey informed the Tribunal that in forming part of her opinion, she reviewed and assisted with preparation of the witness statement of her colleague, Darren Vella, MCIP, RPP, dated February 26, 2026, which forms part of the evidentiary record before the Tribunal (Exhibit 1, Tab 17). Based on the review of the settlement materials, planning analysis and conclusions contained in that witness statement, Ms. Jeffrey referenced and relied on it, along with her own professional planning opinion in support of the settlement.
20Ms. Jeffrey provided that the subject property is designated as ‘Recreational Resort Settlement Area’ per Schedule A – Land Use Types under the COP.
21Under the TOP, the northern part of the site is described as ‘Residential Recreational Area’ subject to ‘Special Study Area Subject to B3.13.b)’ and the southern portion of the subject property, as well as a small portion adjacent to the eastern lot line, is designated 'Hazard' lands as per Schedule A-3-Camperdown. Camperdown Road is classified as a ‘Local Road’ under the jurisdiction of the Town. Old Lakeshore Road is identified as a ‘Local Road’ per Schedule B-1 Transportation of the TOP and has a two-lane rural cross-section with a gravel driving surface that terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 1.2 kilometres east of Camperdown Road.
22The site is zoned in part as ‘Residential One-One subject to Holding 7 (R1-1-H7)’ and in part ‘Hazard (H)’ as per Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2018-65 (“ZBL”). According to s. 10.2.7 of the ZBL, the Holding Provision (H7) applies to lands that have received Zoning Approval and/or Draft Plan Approval for a future Plan of Condominium. Holding Provision-H7 was placed on the subject property as part of a historic Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law No. 2006-22) to the former Township of Collingwood Zoning By-law No. 83-40. Ms. Jeffrey took the Tribunal though the issues related to the condition.
Does the existing condition comply with s. 51(25) of the Act?
23Ms. Jeffrey stated that s. 51(25) of the Act provides for approval authorities to impose conditions to the approval of a DPS that are reasonable having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision.
24It is the opinion of Ms. Jeffrey that the existing condition does not conform to s. 51(25) of the Act, by not having regard for the nature of the development due to a requirement for the owner to address upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road without defining the scope of those upgrades or demonstrating that the works were required as a result of the subdivision.
25Ms. Jeffrey testified that the revised wording of the condition has a defined infrastructure framework by referencing the Town’s Development Charge Background Study. It generally limits the scope of the works to the eastern limit of the property and the Camperdown Road intersection and establishes an appropriate delivery mechanism through a Development charge credit or front-ending agreement.
26In Ms. Jeffrey’s planning opinion, with the revised wording of the condition, the scope of work is clearly defined and proportionate to the subdivision and conforms to s. 51(25) of the Act.
Does the existing condition have regard to the nature of subdivision?
27Ms. Jeffrey proffered that the original condition did not relate to the nature or scale of the subdivision, particularly because the technical studies concluded that no upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road were required to support the development.
28She said that the revised condition limits the upgrades to the property frontage from the eastern portion of the property to the intersection of Old Lakeshore Road and Camperdown Road, rather than requiring undefined improvements along the entire length of Old Lakeshore Road. Based on the revision, in Ms. Jeffrey’s professional planning opinion, the revised condition appropriately relates to the subdivision, reflects a proportionate response to the development and conforms to s. 51(25) of the Act.
Authority of the Town under s. 51(33) and 51(45) of the Act to impose new draft plan conditions through a draft plan extension application
29Ms. Jeffrey stated that it was not appropriate for the Town to introduce a new and undefined condition through a draft plan of subdivision extension application, taking into account that the draft plan itself had not changed. After dialogue among the Parties, the revised wording provides clarity related to the scope and implementation of the condition. The revised wording specifies how the works will be implemented and scopes the improvements to a defined portion of Old Lakeshore Road.
30Based on the revised wording, it is Ms. Jeffrey’s opinion that the revised condition complies with s. 51(33) and 51(45) of the Act.
Technical evidence demonstrating the need for upgrades
31Ms. Jeffrey explained that Tatham Engineering was the author of the technical studies that were accepted at the time of the original DPA in July of 2022. Technical studies concluded that the development of the 33-lot subdivision would not require road improvements to accommodate future traffic volumes or any operational concerns.
32In her opinion, the revised condition has addressed this concern by relating the road upgrades to the Town’s broader infrastructure planning framework, rather than suggesting that the upgrades were required solely as a result of the 33-lot subdivision.
33She said that by referencing the Town’s Development Charge background study and establishing an implementation mechanism through a development charge credit or front-ending agreement, the revised condition recognizes that the improvements form part of the area-wide infrastructure planning objectives while ensuring any works to accommodate the subdivision are proportionate and defined.
Are upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road more appropriately addressed through the Development Charges (“DC”) and infrastructure planning?
34Ms. Jeffrey stated that the Town’s DC By-law No. 2024-29 have been increased pursuant to the Development Charge Background Study (“DCBS”) and it identified Old Lakeshore Road for reconstruction to an urban cross-section. Thus, the road upgrade costs should be recovered through the Town’s DC framework.
35The revised condition requires that the owner and the Town enter into a DC Credit or Front-Ending Agreement respecting the upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road.
36Ms. Jeffrey is of the opinion that the above approach provides a clear and appropriate implementation mechanism for the works and ensures that the infrastructure improvements are coordinated with the Town’s established DC framework.
Is the condition requiring the Appellant to address upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road consistent with the PPS policies 2.3.1.6 and 3.1.1?
37Ms. Jeffrey feels that the existing condition is not consistent with the PPS, policies 2.3.1.6 and 3.1.1, due to an undefined obligation imposed on a previously approved draft plan, as it did not demonstrate proportionate coordination with the land use impacts of such subdivision.
38She explained that policy 2.3.1.6 directs approval authorities to contemplate the use of phasing policies to align development proposals coordinated with the timely provision of infrastructure. And that policy 3.1.1 places emphasis on efficient, coordinated, and financially viable infrastructure planning that is proportionate to development impacts.
39Ms. Jeffrey opined that the revised wording of the condition is consistent with policies 2.3.1.6 and 3.1.1 by aligning road upgrades with the Town’s DC Background Study.
Does the condition conform with policies 3.4 (7)(b), and 8.2 (a) and (k) of the COP?
40Ms. Jeffrey stated that policies 3.4(7)(b), and 8.2(a) and (k) of the COP encourage settlement area and infrastructure planning to be coordinated and implemented in association with growth management strategies.
41She finds that the revised wording of the condition aligns with these policies by demonstrating the road upgrades are directed by the Town’s DCBS and scoping the works to a more defined portion of Old Lakeshore Road. Based on that, she is of the opinion that these revisions ensure that the road upgrades occur in a coordinated manner that is in conformity with the broader infrastructure planning objectives contemplated in the COP.
Does the condition conform with policy 8.3.3 of the COP?
42Ms. Jeffrey offered that policy 8.3.3 emphasizes the role of local municipalities in managing local road networks and encourages the investigation of traffic management, congestion reduction, and pedestrian safety measures where traffic safety or operational concerns are present, particularly within settlement areas and built-up areas.
43In her opinion, the revised wording of the condition conforms with the transportation planning policies of the COP by clarifying that the improvements are not being imposed based on the traffic impacts of the subdivision but instead are coordinated with the area-wide transportation infrastructure planning objectives.
Does the condition conform with policies D1.2, D2.1 and E1.7 of the TOP?
44Ms. Jeffrey explained that policy D1.2 establishes the Town’s approach to the provision and expansion of municipal water and sewage services within settlement areas.
45Ms. Jeffrey clarified that the concern with the original wording of the condition was the introduction of a broader obligation to address upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road without clearly defining the scope of the works or demonstrating how those upgrades related to the servicing needs of the approved subdivision.
46She added that the revised condition specifies that upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road are to be undertaken in accordance with the Town’s DCBS, that the scope of works will be limited to the portion of Old Lakeshore Road between the eastern extent of the subject property and the intersection with Camperdown Road.
47Ms. Jeffrey finds that the revised wording of the condition aligns with the intent of policy D1.2, which contemplates that infrastructure expansions occur through coordinated municipal servicing strategies, rather than through undefined obligations imposed on a single development. Additionally, it defines the scope of the works and ensures that any infrastructure improvements are implemented through the Town’s broader infrastructure planning framework.
48Ms. Jeffrey provided that policy D2.1 of the TOP establishes the objectives for an efficient and integrated transportation system.
49She offered that the revised wording conforms to the coordinated transportation planning direction of policy D2.1 by ensuring that any improvements to Old Lakeshore Road are implemented in a defined and coordinated manner within the Town’s broader transportation infrastructure planning.
50Ms. Jeffrey stated that policy E1.7 requires that development and infrastructure works be undertaken in accordance with the Town’s Engineering Standards. However, it was not clear how the existing condition could be implemented in accordance with this policy, because it did not identify the Town’s applicable engineering standards or expectations.
51She added that as the result of the settlement discussions, the revised wording provides clarity regarding both the scope and implementation of the works. The revised condition, identifies the portion of Old Lakeshore Road where the improvements shall generally occur, identifies the upgrades required in accordance with the Town’s DCBS, and establishes that the works will be implemented through a Development Charge Credit or Front-Ending Agreement with the Town, and therefore, conforms to policy E1.7.
52Ms. Jeffrey concluded that in her professional planning opinion, the revised wording of the condition represents an appropriate planning outcome that serves the public interest.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
53At the conclusion of the witness testimony of Ms. Jeffrey, Mr. Rouleau stated that the Town, while in agreement with the conclusions reached by Ms. Jeffrey regarding the revised condition, disagrees with the analysis of the original condition.
54The Tribunal notes that Mr. Rouleau did not tender any land use planning evidence to counter the analysis of the original condition provided by the Appellant’s expert planner.
55The Tribunal finds the uncontested evidence of Ms. Jeffrey to be persuasive in demonstrating that the revised condition is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the TOP and COP, represents good planning, is in the public interest, and is therefore reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act.
ORDER
56THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and Condition No. 19 to the Decision of the Committee of the Whole, dated July 2025, is amended as follows:
“That the Owner agrees to upgrade Old Lakeshore Road in accordance with Town's Development Charge Background Study prior to the registration of the Draft Plan. The Owner and the Town shall enter into a Development Charge Credit or Front ending agreement respecting such upgrades. The agreement shall address the scope of work which shall generally be limited to the property frontage from the eastern extent of the property to the Old Lakeshore Road and Camperdown Road intersection.”
“P. Tomilin”
p. tomilin
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.