Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Plan of Subdivision

  1. Thomasfield Homes Limited v. Whiteley

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Motion to the Board to dismiss an appeal of Thomasfield’s approvals for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision pursuant to subsections 17(45), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act. Further, the appellant states that the City should require a Secondary Plan on lands surrounding the subject property; applicant be required to conduct a more detailed Environmental Impact Study; no development on southern and western portions of subject property; conditions 13, 15 and 25 should be more detailed; and development should be modified to include appropriate parkland dedication.


    Held:

    Motion granted, appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent planning grounds upon which the plan or part of the plan that is subject to the appeal could be approved or refused by the Board. The Board stated that raising apprehensions is not sufficient to sustain an appeal, and therefore the Board grants the Motion to Dismiss on the ground enunciated under subsection (a)(i) only of subsections 17(35), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  2. Northridge Homes Ltd. v. Township of Georgian Bluffs

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 6-2003 of the Township of Georgian Bluffs to rezone lands to permit the development of a subdivision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed upon settlement


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that based on the uncontested testimony of both planners that the proposed development represents good planning; is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; conforms to the Official Plan and is in keeping with the pattern of regulations in the zoning By-law the Board will allow the appeals in part and By-law 6-2003 is hereby amended.


    Document(s):



  3. Northridge Home Ltd. v. Township of Georgian Bluffs

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters arising from the Township of Georgian Bluffs Council’s refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment application and draft Plan of Subdivision by Northridge Homes Ltd. for a residential development that is proposed to be on individual septic systems.


    Held:


    Reasons:

    The Parties agreed to approach the Board to explore resolution through mediation. Once this process is completed, the Parties are directed to contact the Board to set a further Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters and to set a date for the hearing.


    Document(s):



  4. Mattamy (Rouge) Ltd. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court


    Application/issue:

    Application by the Ontario Municipal Board for determination of a stated case as to whether the board had jurisdiction to order a municipality to assume ownership of, and service, a laneway in a subdivision against its wishes. The applicant Mattamy owned 150 acres of land in Toronto; it wished to build a subdivision and submitted plans to the city for approval. The plans included laneways for access, depicted as public streets, which Mattamy intended to be city streets with attendant city services. The city refused to approve the plans on the grounds that the proposed lanes were too narrow, at 10.5 metres, for city streets, whereas the City’s standard width was 18.5 metres. Mattamy argued that, within the subdivision, the proposed width met all needs for access by the city and its services, and that the plan should be approved. It also argued that the city had assumed ownership of other laneways of the same width in the area. Mattamy appealed to the Board, seeking approval of the plan and an order requiring the city to assume the ownership and service of the laneways at the proposed width. The city argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to make such an order.


    Held:

    The OMB did not have jurisdiction to order the city to assume the ownership of the proposed laneways or to service those laneways, even if the OMB approved Mattamy’s subdivision plan.


    Reasons:

    The Board does not have any jurisdiction to order the City to assume roads or services under section 41 or section 51 or the Planning Act, and the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the City, against its will, to enter into subdivision agreements or site plan agreements that include clauses requiring the municipality to assume roads and services in order to give effect to the Board’s decision approving the plan. It is therefore the Board’s view that they are without jurisdiction to order the City, contrary to its wishes, to do any of the things set out in the stated case submitted to the court.


    Document(s):



  5. 1462478 Ontario Inc. and George H. Fleming and Associates Limited v. Town of the Blue Mountains

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Fleming appealed the conditions of draft plan approval regarding plan of subdivision and the Board allowed the appeal. In that decision the Board also allowed the two appeals filed by Fleming and 1462478 Ontario Inc., respectively, regarding the Town’s failure to amend Zoning By-law 83-40. The parties were directed to work together to finalize the remaining planning documents, however have been unable to reach an agreement. The proceeding dealt with: finalization of the Zoning By-law amendment; objections to the revisions made by the Proponents to the site plan drawings; the conditions of site plan approval; and the appropriateness of wording of certain provisions.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part and appropriate amendments made


    Reasons:

    The Board allows appeal by 1462478 Ontario Inc. under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, from Council’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 83-40. The Town Clerk is authorized to assign a by-law number to the amendments made by the Board. The Board also finds that the appeals by 1462478 Ontario Inc. under subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, regarding the determination and settlement of the details of a site plan for the development of the Block 10 lands and for the determination and settlement of the details of a site plan for a proposed temporary on-site sales centre for the lands are allowed in part. The Board further orders, pursuant to section 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, that the County of Grey shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act.


    Document(s):



  6. 1462478 Ontario Inc. and George H. Fleming and Associates Limited v. Town of the Blue Mountains

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Development Charges, Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This case is regarding future developments for a subdivision in the Town of the Blue Mountains. The Board is dealing with the following matters: an appeal of conditions No. 5 and 6 of the conditions of draft plan approval, imposed by the County of Grey; an appeal of the Town’s refusal or neglect to make a decision within 90 days of the application to rezone the eight lots and the hazard area abutting the eight lots; an appeal of the site plan for a temporary on-site sales centre; and appeal of the Town’s refusal or neglect to rezone Block 10; and an appeal of the Town’s failure to approve the site plan for the Block 10 lands.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the subject lands do not constitute development that benefits from the reconstructed road and it is unreasonable for the Town to impose the local service component charge on the subject lands. The Board orders that the owner shall satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Town of the Blue Mountains concerning the provisions of services and drainage for the site. The Board shall allow the two appeals filed by 1462478 Ontario Inc. to determine and settle the details of the site plan for the development of Block 10 and the sales pavilion. However, the Board will withhold its order amending Zoning By-law 83-40 and approving the site plans pending the receipt of revised documentation.


    Document(s):