Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001229
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Worldwide Properties (Alliston) Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To facilitate the development of two buildings as additional commercial buildings with new Retail spaces
Reference Number: D11-AL-177
Property Address: 11-37 Young Street
Municipality/UT: Town of New Tecumseth/Simcoe County
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001229
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001229
OLT Case Name: Worldwide Properties (Alliston) Inc. v. New Tecumseth (Town)
Heard: May 13, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Worldwide Properties (Alliston) Inc.
A. Skinner
Town of New Tecumseth
J. Feehely T. Webster
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY j. inniS ON May 13, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This settlement hearing was held with respect to an appeal pursuant to subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), by Worldwide Properties (Alliston) Inc. (“Appellant”) pertaining to the failure of the Town of New Tecumseth (“Town”) to approve the plans or drawings required by section 41 of the Act, in connection with the proposed additional commercial and retail development on the lands municipally known as 11-37 Young Street in the Town, within 60 days after receipt by the Town of such plans or drawings.
2The original proposal contemplated the addition of two new commercial buildings with drive-through facilities on the east portion of the existing commercial plaza lands, together with associated parking, access, servicing, lighting, landscaping, and site works.
3During the site plan review and appeal process, a number of technical issues were identified by the Town relating to matters including sidewalk ownership and conveyance requirements, drive-through stacking and circulation, traffic access, fire route configuration, daylighting triangle requirements, photometric and lighting details, engineering and servicing matters, and coordination across the submitted plans and drawings.
4The original proposal was subsequently refined through revisions to the plans, drawings, and supporting technical materials. The revisions included identifying lands to be conveyed to the Town for sidewalk purposes, revisions to the daylighting triangle information, updated fire route and traffic materials, revisions to the photometric plan, updates to the engineering drawings and servicing materials, and further coordination across the various technical drawings and plans. The Town also accepted the proposed drive-through stacking arrangement based on the justification provided and the constraints associated with the existing site.
5The Tribunal was advised that, following the submission of the revised materials and continued discussions between the Parties and their consultants, the outstanding technical issues were resolved. By May 11, 2026, the Town confirmed that all outstanding engineering comments had been satisfactorily addressed.
6As such, disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal as a settlement hearing for the Tribunal’s consideration. The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials and submissions:
i. the uncontested opinion evidence of Aimee Powell, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, contained in his comprehensive affidavit sworn May 12, 2026 (marked as Exhibit 1);
ii. the Joint Book of Document (marked as Exhibit 2);
iii. the Book of Plans and Drawings and Reports/Studies Supporting Plans for Approval (marked as Exhibit 3);
iv. the Parties’ oral/written submissions in support of the settlement; and
v. the Draft Site Plan Agreement, dated May 12, 2026 (marked as Exhibit 4).
Decision
7The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn affidavit evidence of Ms. Powell reflects revisions to the application before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
8The Tribunal is satisfied that the revised proposal appropriately addresses the technical matters identified through the site plan review and appeal process. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the Parties engaged in an iterative review process resulting in revisions to the plans, drawings, and supporting technical materials relating to matters including traffic and circulation, fire access, servicing, lighting, sidewalk ownership, and coordination across the submitted plans.
9The Tribunal further accepts the evidence of Ms. Powell that the application represents an appropriate form of commercial infill development on an existing commercial site within the settlement area of Alliston. The evidence demonstrated that the revised proposal makes efficient use of existing municipal infrastructure and services, supports employment and economic activity, and represents an appropriate scale and intensity of development for the site and surrounding area.
10The Tribunal also accepts the evidence that the revised proposal has been supported through the review of the various technical experts retained by the Appellant and that the outstanding technical issues identified by the Town