Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003170 (Formerly PL050179-O050032)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Ponderosa Nature Resort Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Reference Number: D08-NE/D14-NE Property Address: 1218 Concession 8 West Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003170 Legacy Case No: PL050179-O050032 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003170 Legacy Lead Case No: PL050179-O050032 OLT Case Name: Ponderosa Nature Resort v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Ponderosa Nature Resort Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z – Neglect of application by the City of Hamilton Property Address: 1218 Concession 8 West Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003175 Legacy Case No: PL050179-Z050024 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003170 Legacy Lead Case No: PL050179-O050032

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

Applicant/Appellant: Ponderosa Nature Resort Subject: Site Plan Reference Number: DA-17-174 Property Address: 1218 Concession 8 West Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003180 Legacy Case No: PL171141 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003170 Legacy Lead Case No: PL050179-O050032

Heard: May 6, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Ponderosa Nature Resort	Peter Gross
City of Hamilton	Partick MacDonald, Courtney Boyd

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON May 6, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) concerning appeals filed by Ponderosa Nature Resort (“Ponderosa”) against the failure of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to make a decision on their site-specific applications to amend the Official Plan, amend the Zoning By-law, and for the approval of a Site Development Plan (together the “Applications”) within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (“Planning Act”).

2Ponderosa operates a mobile home park and seasonal campground together with ancillary uses at 1218 8th Concession Road West (“Subject Property”) in the former Town of Flamborough. Ponderosa filed the Applications in 1994 to recognize the existing use of the Subject Property and contemplate an expansion of their operation. Ponderosa filed their appeals in 2005.

3The Tribunal’s predecessors, the Ontario Municipal Board and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, convened multiple Prehearing Conferences (“PHC”) and CMCs with respect to these appeals. The Parties advised that they were in negotiations, and the matter was repeatedly adjourned to facilitate the continued collaboration. The last CMC conducted with respect to this matter was held on January 11, 2019.

4The Tribunal scheduled this CMC for the Parties to provide the Tribunal with a status update.

STATUS UPDATE

5Peter Gross, Counsel for Ponderosa, updated the Tribunal advising a Settlement Offer dated January 27, 2026, was forwarded to the City, however as of the date of the CMC, the City has not formally responded.

6Mr. Gross submitted that there are two matters at issue, the first being the private septic system requirements for the existing and future operation. The City is requesting that the property be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system and Ponderosa’s position is that the requirement is unreasonable. The second matter relates to the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) completed by Ponderosa. Mr. Gross explained that his clients worked with the City to determine the scope of the EA and upon the substantial completion of the EA, the City advised they want further information.

7Mr. Gross advised that the Tribunal-led mediation has been unsuccessful, and his client wishes to have the matter scheduled for a hearing to allow the Tribunal to consider the merits of the appeals. Mr. Gross requested that a hearing be scheduled for the fall of 2026 to enable his client to undertake and complete sanitary sewer servicing improvement works in the summer of 2027. Any substantial delay may jeopardize much needed repairs and upgrades at the Subject Property into the following year.

8Patrick MacDonald, Counsel for the City, advised that the City continues to work with Ponderosa to achieve a resolution of this matter and the update offered by Mr. Gross is generally accurate. He submitted that scheduling a hearing will move this matter forward to resolve the appeals.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

9The Tribunal reviewed the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and the incomplete draft Issues List. The Tribunal also reviewed the Tribunal’s files and noted that this matter has been pending before the Tribunal for over 20 years. The multiple CMCs or PHCs and the adjournments granted to allow for settlement negotiations or mediation to occur have not yielded any real progress with respect to the resolution of this matter.

10The Tribunal advised that scheduling a hearing is premature until an Issues List is finalized and the Parties know the case they need to make before the Tribunal.

11In reviewing the documents and correspondence contained in the Tribunal’s files, the Tribunal, in an effort to assist the Parties finalize the Issues List, identified the following list of issues it recommends need to be addressed at a future merit hearing:

a) Is a “Mobile Home Park, Seasonal Campground, and ancillary uses” the appropriate description of the use being requested in the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications?

b) Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications protect the Natural Heritage Features present on the Subject Property and are any encroachments appropriate?

c) Does the proposed Wastewater Management Infrastructure adequately service the uses proposed by the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications?

d) Are the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment instruments appropriate and consistent in terms of form and content with the City Official Plan and City Zoning By-law?

e) Should the Site-Specific Zoning By-law include a Holding provision and if so, what are the conditions associated with the Holding provisions?

f) Is a Municipal Responsibility Agreement appropriate for the existing and proposed development and continued use of the Subject Property?

g) What are the appropriate conditions to be attached to the approval of a Site Plan Application for the existing and proposed development and use of the Subject Property to address the following items:

i. Conservation Authority approvals and permits?

ii. Sanitary Site Servicing approvals?

iii. Storm Water Management approvals?

iv. Protection of Natural Heritage Features including Provincially Significant Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas?

v. Emergency access, internal traffic circulation, and unit numbering?

vi. Location, size, and purpose of any easements that are required?

vii. Financial securities required?

11The Tribunal advised that the Parties may identify further issues to be included or alternatively may determine that a matter identified is not at issue and should be removed from the list identified by the Tribunal.

12The Tribunal noted that there do not appear to be any identified issues from a land use planning policy perspective. Notwithstanding, the Parties may wish to address conformity, compliance, and regard for the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, the City Official Plan, and any other applicable policies in the Issues List. Should the Parties identify a planning policy issue, the Tribunal directs the Parties, when referring to the Provincial Planning Statement or the City’s Official Plan, the issue should identify the specific policy(s) at issue.

13Counsel confirmed that the issues identified by the Tribunal are accurate and appropriate for inclusion on the Issues List.

PARTICIPANTS

14The Tribunal identified that there were four interested individuals granted Participant Status in these appeals, however, none of the individuals were in attendance. The Tribunal canvassed Counsel as to any information about their continued participation in the proceedings.

15Counsel could not offer any update on the Participants’ continued involvement.

16The Tribunal will direct the Case Coordinator to contact the Participants to canvas their continued interest in this matter and advise of the future hearing date.

NEXT STEPS

17The Tribunal determined a further CMC is required to review a revised draft PO, including an Issues List, prior to scheduling a hearing on the merits of the appeal.

18The Parties shall provide the Tribunal with the revised draft PO, including an Issues List and an estimated length of hearing, on or before June 2, 2026.

19The Tribunal scheduled the next CMC to be held on Monday, June 8, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

20Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access code: 442-599-157

21Parties and/or Participants 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

22Persons 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) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 442-599-157.

23Individuals 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.

24As 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.

ORDER

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the case management directives set out above are so ordered.

26The Member is seized of this matter for the purpose of case management.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

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.