HomeMy WebLinkAboutBy-law 7966/22 (OLT-22-002250)
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7966/22
OLT Order No.
OLT-22-002250
(Formerly PL171210)
August 26, 2022
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037,
as amended by By-law 6640/06, to implement the Official Plan of
the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Part of Lots 17 and
18, Concession 9, Lots 32,47 and 48 and Part of Lot 31, Plan 12
(A 09/90(R) and A 17/90(R))
Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application
to rezone the subject lands being Part of Lots 17 and 18, Concession 9, Lots 32, 47 and
48 and Part of Lot 31, in the City of Pickering to permit a residential subdivision
consisting of 71 detached dwellings, public roads, stormwater management facilities, a
public park, and open space lands;
And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, is therefore deemed
necessary;
Now therefore by Order, the Ontario Land Tribunal amends By-law 3037 as follows:
1. Schedule I
Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is
hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
2. Area Restricted
The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lots 17 & 18,
Concession 9, Lots 32,47 & 48 and Part of Lot 31, in the City of Pickering,
designated “ORM-R5”, “ORM-R6-7”, “ORM-R6-8”, “ORM-R6-9”, “ORM-EP”,
“ORM-OS” and “ORM-R” on Schedule I.
3. Text Amendments
1. Section 8.6.3 is hereby amended by adding the following new subsections
following subsection 8.6.3.6, as follows:
8.6.3.7 – ORM-R6-7
a) Section 5.20 Yard Requirements with Respect to Certain Streets,
shall not apply to lands zoned “ORM-R6-7”;
b) Despite Section 5.7, fences shall be permitted within the front yard of
lands zoned “ORM-R6-7”; and
By-law No. 7966/22 Page 2
c) Notwithstanding Section 5.40 Minimum Distance Separation shall not
apply to lands zoned “ORM-R6-7”.
8.6.3.8 – ORM-R6-8
a) Notwithstanding Section 5.10, a front yard for lands zoned “ORM-R6-
8” shall not be required from Brock Road;
b) Section 5.20 Yard Requirements with Respect to Certain Streets,
shall not apply to lands zoned “ORM-R6-8”;
c) Despite Section 5.7, fences shall be permitted within the front yard of
lands zoned “ORM-R6-8”; and
d) Notwithstanding Section 5.40 Minimum Distance Separation shall not
apply to lands zoned “ORM-R6-8”.
8.6.3.9 – ORM-R6-9
a) Despite Section 8.6.2 (i), a minimum lot area of 0.27 of a hectare
shall be provided for lands zoned “ORM-R6-9”;
b) Despite Section 5.7, fences shall be permitted within the front yard of
lands zoned “ORM-R6-9”; and
c) Notwithstanding Section 5.40 Minimum Distance Separation shall not
apply to lands zoned “ORM-R6-9”.
Section 14 is hereby amended by adding the following subsections
following subsection 14.4, as follows:
14.5 ORM-OS
No person shall within Oak Ridges Moraine Open Space (ORM-OS) Zone,
use any land or erect alter of use any building or structure except in
accordance with the following:
14.5.1 Permitted Uses
i) Stormwater Management Pond
ii) Emergency Vehicle Access
14.5.2 Regulations for Permitted Uses
i) Minimum Lot Area Nil
ii) Minimum Lot Frontage Nil
iii) Minimum Yard Requirements Nil
2.
By-law No. 7966/22 Page 3
4. By-law 3037
By-law 3037, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent
necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject
matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant
provisions of By-law 3037, as amended.
5. Effective Date
This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
Note: Oral decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal delivered by Blair S. Taylor on
August 23, 2022. Written Decision issued August 26, 2022.
n
St
r
e
e
t
il
F
r
a
n
k
ORM-R6-9
ORM-R5
n
R
-
OR
M
-
R
6
-
7
OR
M
-
O
S
Br
o
c
k
Ro
a
d
OR
M
-
R
6
-
8
To
m
T
h
ne
16
o
m
s
o
n
C
il
o
Si
d
e
urt
OR
M
-
R
6
-
9
xs
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
Br
o
c
k
Ro
a
d
am
St
r
e
e
t
iW
Do
w
St
r
e
e
t
il
l
i
W
N
ORM-EP
Fra
klin
St
re
et
O
M
R6-9
ORM-R6-7
ORM-R5 ORM-OS
ORM-EP
ORM-R6-7
ORM-R6-7
ORM-R6-7
ORM-R5 ORM-R Lane Street
Schedule I to By-Law 7966/22
Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal
Oral Decision Delivered August 23, 2022
Written Decision Issued August 26, 2022
OLT Written Decision pertaining to By-law No. 7966/22
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 26, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002250
(Formerly PL171210)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Subject: Refusal or neglect to make a decision
ZBA/DPS for Claremont Dev. Corp. Phase 1 Description: Residential
Reference Number: A9/90
Property Address: 5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Case No.: PL171210
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171210
OLT Case Name: Claremont Development Corporation v.
Pickering (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Subject: Refusal or neglect to make a decision
ZBA/DPS for Claremont Dev. Corp. Phase 1 Description: Residential
Reference Number: A 17/90
Property Address: 5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002253
Legacy Case No.: PL171211
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002250
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171210
2 OLT-22-002250
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject:
Reference Number:
Property Address:
Municipality/UT:
OLT Case No:
Legacy Case No:
OLT Lead Case No:
Legacy Lead Case No:
OLT Case Name:
Heard:
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel/Representative*
Claremont Development Corporation M. Flowers/ A. Lusty
(“Applicant”)
The Regional Municipality of Durham R. Woon
(“Region”)
The Corporation of the City of M. Joblin
Pickering (“City”)
The Toronto and Region Conservation S. Heuchert*
Authority (“TRCA”)
Andre Kern Did not appear
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of
Approval Authority to make a decision
18T-90016
5113 Old Brock Road (5113 Old Brock Road)
Pickering/Durham
OLT-22-002254
PL171212
OLT-22-002250
PL171210
Claremont Development Corporation v.
Pickering (City)
August 23, 2022 by Video Hearing
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON
AUGUST 23, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
[1] In or about 1990, the Applicant had made a development application for the
3 OLT-22-002250
lands known municipally as 5113 Old Brock Road (“Subject Lands”) in the Hamlet of
Claremont seeking to rezone the Subject Lands and have a draft plan of subdivision
approved. No decision was made on the development proposal.
[2] In or about 2018 revised applications were submitted as revisions to what had
been earlier filed. This led to a series of appeals, including the Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal (“LPAT”, the Tribunal’s predecessor), the Divisional Court, appeal to the
Ontario Court of Appeal refused, that focused inter alia on the Clergy Principle.
[3] The LPAT decision, upheld by the Divisional Court, was that the Clergy Principle
applied and that the applicable municipal land use planning instruments were the
Region of Durham Official Plan (June 5, 1991) and the Claremont Development Plan,
1991 (Edition 3).
[4] Additionally the Transitional Rules of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 O. Reg
311/06 provide that it did not apply to this development application.
[5] The matter was set down for a 14 day hearing on the merits to commence on
August 22, 2022.
[6] In the lead up to the hearing, the Applicant, the Region, the City, the TRCA, and
Mr. Andre all participated in private mediation that led to Minutes of Settlement found in
Exhibit 2 Tab 2.
[7] One party, David Masters, did not participate in the mediation.
[8] However by letter dated July 27, 2022, counsel for Mr. Masters gave notice of his
withdrawal as a party (Exhibit 1).
[9] Thus the matter came before the Tribunal as a settlement proposal.
[10] The Tribunal had before it the Applicant’s Document Book (Exhibit 2) which
4 OLT-22-002250
contained the land use planning joint affidavit of Don Given and Matthew Cory in
support of the proposed settlement, and the Minutes of Settlement, and appended to
the Minutes of Settlement were the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), the draft
plan of subdivision (“Draft Plan”), and the draft conditions of draft plan approval (“Draft
Plan Conditions”).
[11] The Tribunal heard the oral evidence of Matthew Cory, the submissions of
counsel, and for the reasons set out below allowed the appeals in part.
DECISION
[12] The Subject Lands are located within the Hamlet of Claremont, are about 38
hectares in area and the existing land use is primarily agricultural.
[13] To the north of the Subject Lands is a wooded area, residential uses and a
railway. To the south are commercial and residential uses. To the east is Brock Road
and agricultural lands, and to the west are commercial and residential uses.
[14] The settlement proposal arising from the Minutes of Settlement would result in
the development of 33.86 hectares of the Subject Lands within the Hamlet of Claremont
consisting of 71 lots, four new roads, two stormwater management ponds, and a 1.70
hectare park.
[15] At the hearing, the letter of withdrawal from party status by counsel for David
Masters was entered as Exhibit 1.
[16] Exhibit 2 contained the affidavit evidence of land use planners Don Given and
Matthew Cory (Tab 1), and the Minutes of Settlement executed by the above noted
parties (except David Masters) (Tab 2) and attached to the Minutes of Settlement with
the revised draft ZBA, Draft Plan, and Draft Plan Conditions (Tab 2 Schedules A, B, and
C).
5 OLT-22-002250
[17] Entered as Exhibit 3 was an updated Participant Statement from John Hickman.
[18] The Tribunal heard the uncontroverted and uncontested expert land use planning
evidence of Mr. Cory in which he confirmed that the settlement proposal as found in the
Minutes of Settlement:
a. Had appropriate regard for all the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of
the Planning Act (“PA”);
b. Was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”);
c. Conformed with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
d. That the Growth Plan did not apply because of the Transitional Rules in O.
Reg 311/06;
e. Conformed to the Regional Official Plan (June 5, 1991);
f. Conformed to the Claremont Development Plan, 1991 (Edition 3);
g. That the Draft Plan satisfied all the criteria of s. 51(24) of the PA;
h. That the Draft Plan Conditions were reasonable and appropriate;
i. That the development represented good land use planning;
j. And that the development was in the public interest.
[19] The Tribunal heard the submissions of counsel for the parties and from the
representative of the TRCA, all in support of the settlement proposal.
[20] The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Regional Council, and City Council
as reflected in the Minutes of Settlement, considered the updated Participant Statement
6 OLT-22-002250
of John Hickman (Exhibit 3), and both the affidavit planning evidence and the oral
evidence of Mr. Cory.
[21] The Tribunal found that the proposed development had been extensively studied,
that the proposed development was within the Hamlet and would complete the Hamlet,
would contribute to the vitality of the Hamlet and the additional growth would encourage
the existing businesses in the Hamlet, all while not adversely affecting any natural
heritage, ecologically or hydrologically sensitive features associated with the Oak
Ridges Moraine, and without any adverse impacts on neighbouring/surrounding
agricultural uses.
[22] Thus the Tribunal found that all the statutory tests had been met: that the matters
of Provincial Interests have been appropriately considered; that the settlement proposal
was consistent with the PPS and conformed to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan; that the settlement proposal conformed to the appropriate versions of the
Regional Official Plan and the Claremont Development Plan 1991; that all the criteria of
s. 51(24) of the PA had been met; that the Draft Plan Conditions were reasonable and
appropriate; that the settlement proposal represented good land use planning; and was
in the public interest.
[23] Accordingly the Tribunal will:
a. Allow the ZBA appeal in part and order that the City’s Zoning By-law be
amended by the ZBA as found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule A and
appended to this decision as Attachment 1;
b. Allow the subdivision appeal in part and approve the Draft Plan as found
in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule B, and appended to this decision as
Attachment 2;
c. Approve the Draft Plan Conditions as found in Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Schedule C
and appended hereto as Attachment 3; and
7 OLT-22-002250
d. Order that pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the PA, that final approval of the Draft
Plan be given by the City.
[24] The attachments appended to this Decision form part of the Decision.
[25] This is the Order of the Tribunal.
“Blair S. Taylor”
BLAIR S. TAYLOR
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.
8 OLT-22-002250
ATTACHMENT 1
9 OLT-22-002250
10 OLT-22-002250
11 OLT-22-002250
12 OLT-22-002250
13 OLT-22-002250
ATTACHMENT 2
14 OLT-22-002250
ATTACHMENT 3
15 OLT-22-002250
16 OLT-22-002250
17 OLT-22-002250
18 OLT-22-002250
19 OLT-22-002250
20 OLT-22-002250
21 OLT-22-002250
22 OLT-22-002250
23 OLT-22-002250
24 OLT-22-002250
25 OLT-22-002250
26 OLT-22-002250
27 OLT-22-002250
28 OLT-22-002250
29 OLT-22-002250
30 OLT-22-002250
31 OLT-22-002250
32 OLT-22-002250
33 OLT-22-002250