Ontario Land Tribunal  
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement  
du territoire  
ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2022  
CASE NO(S).:  
OLT-22-003583  
(Formerly) PL210328  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
1990, c. P.13, as amended  
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Horseshoe Valley Developments (2018) Inc.  
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 97-95  
- Refusal or neglect of Township of Oro-  
Medonte to make a decision  
Residential One Exception 140 Exception  
(R1*140) Zone  
Existing Zoning:  
Proposed Zoning:  
Residential One Exception ___(R1*___) Zone  
and Residential Two Exception ___(R2*___)  
Zone  
Purpose:  
To permit the development of a subdivision  
cosisting of 73 residential units  
Part of Lot 4, Concession 4  
Township of Oro-Medonte  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality:  
Municipal File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
2016-ZBA-01  
OLT-22-003583  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
OLT Case Name:  
PL210328  
OLT-22-003583  
PL210328  
Horseshoe Valley Developments (2018) Inc. v.  
Oro-Medonte (Township)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
1990, c. P.13, as amended  
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Horseshoe Valley Developments (2018) Inc.  
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of  
Township of Oro-Medonte to make a decision  
To permit the development of a subdivision  
cosisting of 73 residential units  
Purpose:  
Property Address/Description:  
Part of Lot 4, Concession 4  
2
OLT-22-003583  
Municipality:  
Municipal File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
Township of Oro-Medonte  
2016-SUB-01  
OLT-22-003584  
PL210329  
OLT-22-003583  
PL210328  
Heard:  
In writing and on April 19, 2022 by video  
hearing (“VH”)  
APPEARANCES:  
Parties  
Counsel  
Horseshoe Valley Developments  
(2018) Inc.  
Susan Rosenthal  
Samantha Lampert  
Township of Oro-Medonte  
Ed Veldboom  
MEMORANDUM OF PARTIAL ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS  
ON APRIL 19, 2022 AND FURTHER DECISION AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL  
INTRODUCTION  
[1]  
Horseshoe Valley Developments (2018) Inc. (the Applicant”) is seeking approval  
of the following:  
1.  
a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to reflect increased density  
permitted pursuant to Official Plan Amendment No. 36 (“OPA 36”;  
approved in 2014); to wit, to facilitate the development of 23 single-  
detached residential lots and 48 townhouse blocks as part of what has  
been referred to as “Phase 4” of a development originally approved in  
2001 as part of the 5-phase Horseshoe Valley Subdivision (the “2001  
Subdivision”);  
2.  
a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision (DPS) to include the aforementioned  
townhouse units in addition to single detached residential lots to reflect the  
3
OLT-22-003583  
above noted increased density permitted pursuant to OPA 36 and the  
proposed ZBA; and  
3.  
DPS Conditions to facilitate the above-described development / proposed  
ZBA / revised DPS which does not include a requirement to convey  
certain lands that are owned by a third-party, on which Stormwater  
Management (“SWM”) facilities are located that were planned and  
constructed to service the existing approved DPS as it relates to Phase 4  
and the rest of the 2001 Subdivision.  
[2]  
This appeal arises following the Township of Oro-Medonte’s (the “Township”)  
insistence to include such conditions which require the Applicant to convey said third-  
party-owned lands containing said SWM facilities to the Township.  
[3]  
The Township takes the position that it is necessary that it own the lands  
containing said SWM facilities in order to maintain effective control over the  
maintenance and operation of these facilities, while the Applicant takes an opposing  
standpoint. The Applicant submits that:  
1.  
It is unreasonable to require the Applicant to convey lands that it does not  
own, as the Applicant is powerless to convey such lands and, if such a  
DPS Condition is applied, it will virtually guarantee that the Applicant's  
development cannot proceed;  
2.  
It is unnecessary for the Township to own the third-party-owned lands  
containing the subject SWM facilities because an easement exists which  
is capable of providing the Township with the necessary access and  
control over these lands for the purpose of maintaining and operating the  
SWM facilities;  
3.  
Planning policies encourage the efficient use of existing infrastructure,  
such as the existing SWM facilities;  
4
OLT-22-003583  
4.  
5.  
It is generally bad planning to introduce such a new requirement to  
facilitate the development of Phase 4, when all of the phases of this 5-  
phase development have been planned (and some completed) around  
using the existing SWM facilities located on the third-party-owned lands to  
service the SWM needs of the 2001 Development; and  
If the Township absolutely requires ownership of the lands containing the  
subject SWM facilities, it has powers of expropriation to obtain the lands.  
The Applicant does not have such powers.  
[4]  
Outside of this relatively narrow issue, there are no Township planning related  
concerns about the proposed uses, density, compatibility, fit, or the layout of the  
proposed revised DPS, nor are there any concerns raised with respect to the proposed  
ZBA to permit the intensification of the site. Notably, there are no concerns from a  
technical or engineering standpoint insofar as whether or not the existing SWM facilities  
(specifically the SWM pond known as “SWM Pond #5”) is capable of servicing the  
proposed development with increased density. The issue is exclusively limited to the  
ownership status of said lands containing the SWM facilities.  
[5]  
It is also noteworthy that the Applicant may immediately develop the subject  
lands as-of-right at the lower density currently permitted in accordance with the existing  
Zoning By-law and approved DPS, which features no conditions to require conveyance  
of the subject third-party-owned lands to the municipality.  
[6]  
The proposed ZBA is appended as Attachment 1 of this decision, and the  
proposed DPS is appended as Attachment 2. Both of the proposed ZBA and DPS are  
uncontested. The Township’s proposed DPS Conditions requiring conveyance of the  
lands containing the subject SWM facilities are appended as Attachment 3 to the  
decision, and the Applicant’s version, amended to not require the conveyance of the  
third-party-owned lands, is appended as Attachment 4.  
5
OLT-22-003583  
[7]  
The Tribunal notes that the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association were  
granted participant status in the present matter and submitted a Participant Statement  
that was generally supportive of the Applicant’s revised proposal. They raised no new  
policy issues to consider.  
[8]  
It is also noteworthy that, through the course of the parties exchanging and filing  
their respective appeal materials, they mutually recognized an inadvertent issue  
respecting the originally proposed planning instruments. The parties subsequently  
agreed that the issue could affect the developability of a small portion of the Phase 4  
lands. As a solution, the Applicant suggested revisions to the originally proposed  
planning instruments as follows:  
a.  
b.  
The proposed DPS be amended to replace former Lots 3 and 4 with a new  
Future Development Block labelled as “Block 32”;  
The proposed ZBA be amended to place a holding symbol on Block 32  
until, to the satisfaction of the Township, a suitable building envelope or  
envelopes can be placed on the lands subject to the hold; and  
c.  
The proposed DPS Conditions include a condition requiring a warning  
clause to be included in any Agreement of Purchase and Sale for new  
Lots 2 and 3, so that potential purchasers are aware of the existence of an  
easement on a small portion of these lots which may restrict the  
construction of structures and other obstructions on such portions.  
[9]  
The Township took no issue with the proposed revisions, nor did it indicate that it  
had any material effect on its position respecting the proposed ZBA, DPS, or DPS  
Conditions that are the subject of this appeal. The Tribunal similarly finds that the  
above-described revisions are minor in nature and have no material effect on the issues  
in dispute. The case therefore proceeds pursuant to the revised proposed planning  
instruments, which are appended as Attachments 1 to 4 of this decision, with no further  
notice required.  
6
OLT-22-003583  
FACTUAL CONTEXT  
[10] Evidence was provided to the Tribunal in affidavit form from the following  
witnesses, proffered by the parties as indicated below. The Tribunal accepts this  
evidence and qualifies the following individuals as experts capable of providing opinion  
evidence in the areas indicated below:  
Applicant Jeff McCuage Municipal Services / SWM (as an Engineer)  
Applicant Darren Vella Land Use Planning  
Township Michelle Jakobi Municipal Services / SWM (as an  
Engineering Technologist)  
Township Derek Witlib Land Use Planning  
[11] Except where indicated, the below summary of facts is uncontested.  
Phase 4 of the 2001 Subdivision  
[12] The lands planned for development of Phase 4 (the “Subject Lands”) are  
5.2 hectares, vacant, and legally described as Part of Lots 3 & 4, Concession 4 in the  
Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area within the Township. The Subject Lands are  
bounded by the developed Phase 3 lands to the west, undeveloped Phase 5 lands to  
the east, and a now-vacant golf course to the north and south (the “Golf Course Lands”;  
which is owned by a third-party and contains the subject SWM facilities, including SWM  
Pond #5)  
[13] The 2001 Subdivision was originally draft plan approved to consist of 595 single  
detached residential units to be developed in five phases with one additional subphase  
known as Ridgewood Court. In addition to residential units, the plan includes a series of  
7
OLT-22-003583  
open space blocks, a pumping station, fire access, road widenings, 0.3-metre reserves,  
a community centre, walkways and various internal roads.  
[14] Notably, the entire 2001 Subdivision lands do not include any SWM ponds and,  
instead, these lands are planned to drain and outlet stormwater into a series of SWM  
ponds located on the third-party-owned Golf Course Lands.  
[15] The original DPS for the entirety of the 2001 Subdivision, including Phase 4, are  
subject to a series of conditions approved at the time it was originally DPS approved.  
These conditions notably do not include conveyance of any third-party-owned lands  
containing SWM Ponds to the Municipality.  
[16] The use, maintenance and any further construction of SWM facilities located on  
the Golf Course Lands, for the purpose of serving the SWM needs of the 2001  
Subdivision, are reliant on an easement in favour of the owner of the 2001 Subdivision  
lands, registered on title of the Golf Course Lands as Instrument LT522878 (the  
“Easement”)  
[17] Phases 1 to 3 of the 2001 Subdivision have now been registered, developed and  
are occupied by home purchasers. These approved and registered phases notably  
utilize the various SWM Ponds planned and constructed on the Golf Course Lands for  
SWM purposes.  
[18] A further subphase of the original 2001 Subdivision, known as Ridgewood Court,  
has also been registered, developed and is occupied by homeowners. This subphase is  
particularly notable since it specifically drains and outlets into SWM Pond #5, being the  
same SWM pond planned and designed to serve the SWM needs of the subject  
Phase 4. The Ridgewood Court subphase and Phase 3 were developed in 2013 and  
2014 respectively, and were notably not subject to a requirement to convey the SWM  
Pond to the Township. The obvious implication of this fact is that SWM Pond #5 is  
already being utilized as a SWM facility serving the SWM needs of the 2001  
8
OLT-22-003583  
Subdivision, despite it being situated on lands owned by a third-party and without there  
being any requirement to convey these lands to the Municipality.  
[19] Phase 4 was granted draft plan extensions in 2017, 2020, and 2021. As a result,  
it is currently permitted to proceed as originally planned, albeit at a lower density,  
without any requirement to convey the subject third-party-owned SWM lands to the  
Municipality.  
[20] In its submissions, the Township noted that, at the time of the DPS approval and  
registration of the Easement, the owners of the 2001 Subdivision Lands and the Golf  
Course Lands were affiliated companies. This is no longer the case since both  
properties (being the undeveloped portions of the 2001 Subdivision lands and the Golf  
Course Lands) have changed ownership, and those lots already sold as part of  
Phases 1 to 3 and Ridgewood Court now belong to individual residential homeowners.  
Pointing to this fact, the Township takes the position that the change of ownership (from  
affiliated to non-affiliated companies) constitutes a material change in circumstances  
which affects the appropriateness of having the SWM ponds located on a third-party’s  
property.  
[21] On this particular point, the Tribunal finds this fact has no bearing on the  
outcome of the current appeal. The 2001 Subdivision Lands and the Golf Course Lands  
have always been owned by different entities and a sale of either or both lands have  
always been possible and should be expected, especially considering the obvious  
implication of selling developed residential lots to individual homeowners. While the  
Tribunal notes this fact as submitted by the Township, it finds that it has no bearing on  
the analysis of this decision.  
9
OLT-22-003583  
Easement  
[22] The Applicant currently holds an Easement over the Golf Course Lands providing  
certain rights associated with the SWM facilities located on the Golf Course Lands. The  
particularly relevant terms of the Easement are copied as follows:  
1.  
The [owner of the Golf Course Lands] hereby transfers to the  
[owner of the 2001 Subdivision Lands] the free and uninterrupted and  
unobstructed right and Easement to construct, operate and maintain  
such Storm Sewer or Sewers and such Stormwater Management  
Facilities (the said Storm Sewers and Stormwater Management Facilities  
are collectively called the "Storm Sewer"), together with any and all  
appurtenances thereto as may be required from time to time in, under  
and across the [Golf Course Lands] by the Township of Oro-Medonte or  
the County of Simcoe pursuant to the terms of any subdivision,  
engineering, development or site plan agreement.  
2.  
Together with the right of the [owner of the 2001 Subdivision  
Lands], its successors and assigns and its and their servants, agents  
and workmen with all necessary equipment, machinery and vehicles to  
enter upon said lands at all times and to pass and repass thereon for the  
purposes of constructing, reconstructing, examining, repairing, renewing  
or replacing (including replacement with a Storm Sewer of larger size or  
capacity) and maintaining the said Storm Sewer or any part or parts  
thereof whether or not any part to be so constructed, repaired, renewed,  
replaced or maintained is situate on the land above described.  
3.  
The [owner of the Golf Course Lands] hereby undertakes that  
the [Golf Course Lands] shall remain free of physical encumbrances  
which would hinder the access by the [the owner of the 2001 Subdivision  
Lands], its servants, or its agents and the [owner of the Golf Course  
Lands] hereby undertakes that only the usual grass cover and/or flower  
beds, trees, golf course features and fencing with gates, will be suffered  
on the said lands, and that no trees, structures, or obstructions will be  
permitted to remain thereon unless the [the owner of the 2001  
Subdivision Lands] in writing permits the existence of certain physical  
encumbrances on the lands, for limited periods of time, upon written  
application by the [owner of the Golf Course Lands] to the [the owner of  
the 2001 Subdivision Lands].  
[…]  
5.  
[The owner of the 2001 Subdivision Lands] acknowledges that  
the [Golf Course Lands] are primarily used as a golf course by the  
[owner of the Golf Course Lands], and accordingly any ingress onto the  
lands shall be by written notice to the [owner of the Golf Course Lands],  
and, [the owner of the 2001 Subdivision Lands] agrees to abide by any  
reasonable terms of ingress, and, to reduce, where possible any  
interference with the [owner of the Golf Course Lands]'s use of the golf  
course. [The owner of the 2001 Subdivision Lands] agrees to schedule  
10  
OLT-22-003583  
any required work on the Storm Sewer, during the times that the golf  
course is not in use, unless an emergency requires otherwise.  
[23] The Tribunal notes, as it relates to Terms 3 and 5 above, that the parties both  
acknowledge that the Golf Course Lands are no longer being used as a golf course.  
[24] The Applicant’s witnesses testified that the phases of the 2001 Subdivision that  
are already built and occupied, including Phases 1 to 3 and Ridgewood Court (which  
notably uses the same SWM Pond #5 as the proposed revised Phase 4 DPS), rely on  
the Easement for the purposes of ongoing operation, repair and any necessary updates  
of the SWM facilities.  
[25] The parties both acknowledge that, eventually, the Applicant will cease to  
maintain an interest in the 2001 Subdivision lands (i.e., once all of the phases are  
completed, individual lots are transferred to homeowners, and all lands designated for  
public purposes are conveyed to the Municipality), and thus it would cease to maintain  
Easement rights associated with the SWM facilities located on the Golf Course Lands.  
Given that the subject Easement rights ‘run with the land’, both parties acknowledge  
that the Easement rights associated with the SWM facilities (i.e., access to allow for  
appropriate construction, upgrade, repair, maintenance, etc.) are currently destined to  
rest with each individual lot owners of the 2001 Subdivision. This eventual outcome  
constitutes the core of the Township’s concerns respecting this matter.  
[26] In an apparent response to this issue, the Applicant indicated in its submissions  
that it “has offered to enter into arrangements with the Township to provide legal access  
to the Township in accordance with the terms of the Easement should they wish to  
access the SWM facilities” (hereinafter referred to as the “Legal Access Offer”). The  
Applicant provided no further details about what this might precisely involve, nor did it  
nor the Township make any reference to such a possible arrangement within its  
respective proposed DPS Conditions appended hereto as Attachments 3 and 4.  
11  
OLT-22-003583  
[27] The Tribunal finds that such an arrangement, if feasible, is important to consider,  
given that much of the Township’s policy-based submissions respecting the  
reasonableness of its proposed DPS Conditions is premised on a position that the  
Municipality must have sufficient control over the SWM facilities located on the Golf  
Course Lands. While the Township insists in its submissions that sufficient control can  
only be achieved through ownership of the lands, the Tribunal finds that an alternative  
to outright title ownership should at least be considered, if feasible, as part of the  
present appeal.  
[28] In addition, the Tribunal notes that, in the same way that the subject Easement  
rights run with the landto confer rights to individual homeowners who purchase lots of  
the 2001 Subdivision, the same must also logically result in favour of the Township  
regarding those lands of the 2001 Subdivision, internal to the subdivision, that are  
conveyed to the Township (i.e., lands occupying public streets, parks, municipal  
infrastructure, etc.).  
Current Applications  
[29] The Subject Lands / Phase 4 are currently draft plan approved for approximately  
69 single-detached units, subject to the same DPS conditions as the balance of the  
2001 Subdivision.  
[30] In 2014, the Township approved OPA 36, which serves to re-designate portions  
of the Subject Lands to permit higher density development.  
[31] In 2016, in order to implement the increased density allowed by OPA 36, the  
Applicant submitted applications for a ZBA and revised DPS, which were appealed for  
non-decision in March 2021 (collectively, the “Current Applications”).  
12  
OLT-22-003583  
[32] The Current Applications propose 23 single-detached residential lots (plus  
Block 32, which is set aside for potential future development of two additional single-  
detached residential lots) and 48 townhouse blocks.  
[33] Mr. McCuaig, the Applicant’s municipal services / SWM expert, prepared the  
Functional Servicing Report dated January 17, 2021 (the “FSR”) in connection with the  
Current Applications addressing SMW servicing. The report proposes that the Current  
Applications be designed to convey minor storm flows underground and major storm  
flows overland to discharge into the existing SWM Pond #5 located on the Golf Course  
Lands.  
[34] This is the same scheme that was originally proposed and approved for Phase 4  
of the 2001 Subdivision. The FSR denotes that the proposed SWM system meets all  
required design standards and that sufficient flow volumes are present. The FSR  
confirms that the development will be able to maintain a water balance with pre-  
development conditions and can show a reduction in phosphorous runoff. Mr. McCuaig  
confirmed in his Affidavit that he has been advised that both the Township and the  
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (“NVCA”) are satisfied with the proposed  
preliminary stormwater servicing analysis and SWM scheme, in principle, from an  
engineering / technical standpoint.  
ANALYSIS  
[35] To repeat, the Township has not raised any issues with respect to the SWM  
plans other than it relates to the ownership of the facilities that are located on the Golf  
Course Lands. Further, to be clear, the Applicant is in agreement with the imposition of  
all of the DPS conditions proposed by the Township, save and except for the imposition  
of conditions associated with the conveyance of third-party-owned lands containing  
SWM facilities designed to serve the needs of Phase 4 (such conditions are  
incorporated into conditions 21, 26(e) and 42 of the Township’s DPS Conditions,  
appended as Attachment 3). In its submissions, the Applicant has clarified that it is  
13  
OLT-22-003583  
prepared to convey any part of the SWM system to the Township that is located on their  
lands.  
[36] Further, to be clear, Township staff, in addition to peer reviewers and external  
agencies such as the NVCA, have raised no objections respecting the proposed  
development from a land use planning standpoint, including no concerns about  
proposed uses, density, compatibility, fit, or the layout of the subdivision. In summary,  
the Township is supportive of the technical and planning aspects of the Current  
Applications, save and except for the ownership of the SWM facilities’ lands.  
[37] Setting aside the ownership issues associated with the subject SWM facilities, no  
issues have been raised with respect to consistency with the Provincial Policy  
Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conformity to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden  
Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”), the County of Simcoe Official Plan (“CSOP”), or the  
Township’s Official Plan (“Township OP”).  
[38] The ZBA application, alone, is uncontested and supported by the Township, with  
the ownership of SWM lands having no bearing on this part of the Current Applications.  
[39] Much of the DPS analysis can also be examined by the Tribunal from a policy  
standpoint. For example, the proposed uses, density, compatibility, fit, and layout of the  
DPS are principally unaffected by the ownership status of lands containing the subject  
SWM facilities.  
[40] As a result, and as a means to later focus exclusively on the contested issues,  
the Tribunal will first examine the Current Applications while setting aside the issues  
surrounding the ownership of lands containing the subject SWM facilities. Following this,  
the Tribunal will focus on the contested issues, being a policy analysis associated with  
municipal versus private ownership of lands containing the subject SWM facilities.  
14  
OLT-22-003583  
Policy Context: Setting Aside the SWM Facilities Ownership Issues  
[41] The evidence demonstrates that the Subject Lands are located within the  
Settlement Area of Horseshoe Valley and are partially designated Horseshoe Valley  
Low Density Residential (which permits single-detached dwellings) and Horseshoe  
Valley Medium Density Residential (which permits single-detached, townhouses, and  
mid-rise buildings) under OPA 36. There is no contest that the Current Applications  
conform with the existing designations of the Subject Lands and an official plan  
amendment is not required.  
[42] The uncontested evidence also shows that the Current Applications lay out an  
appropriate lotting fabric for Phase 4 to maintain conformity with the larger 2001  
Subdivision and to ensure that Phase 4 can be implemented in a comprehensive  
fashion with adjacent Phases 3 and 5.  
[43] Through his Affidavit, Mr. Vella, the Applicant’s Land Use Planning Expert,  
undertakes a detailed policy review of the Current Applications and concludes that the  
Current Applications are consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, the  
CSOP, and the Township OP, and it generally represents good planning in the public  
interest.  
[44] Mr. Witlib, the Township’s Land Use Planning Expert, focused his Affidavit  
evidence exclusively on the SWM facilities ownership issues and, consequently, did not  
provide evidence contrary to Mr. Vella’s opinion with respect to the balance of the policy  
matters to consider respecting the Current Applications.  
[45] As a result, when examining the merits of the Current Applications while setting  
aside the SWM facilities ownership issues, the Tribunal relies principally on Mr. Vella’s  
evidence and opinion.  
15  
OLT-22-003583  
[46] Accordingly, while setting aside the SWM facilities ownership issues, the Tribunal  
accepts Mr. Vella’s evidence and opinion and finds that the Current Applications have  
sufficient regard for the applicable sections of the Planning Act (“Act”), are consistent  
with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, the County and Township OPs, and  
generally represent good planning in the public interest.  
[47] A summary of Mr. Vella’s evidence in this regard is as follows.  
Planning Act  
[48] Given the nature of the proposal, including its current location within an identified  
settlement area, existing land use designations which permit the form of development  
proposed and current DPS approval status, the proposed applications appropriately  
consider matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 and have sufficient regards for  
the listed criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act.  
[49] As it relates to s. 51(25) of the Act, the DPS Conditions proposed by the  
Township are reasonable and appropriate, provided that the conditions requiring  
conveyance of third-party-owned lands are set aside.  
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020  
[50] The PPS encourages the establishment of healthy, liveable and safe  
communities and requires that sufficient land be made available to accommodate an  
appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected intensification targets of the  
community.  
[51] Given the nature of the proposal, location of the Subject Lands, including existing  
land use designations and current DPS approval status, the Current Applications are  
consistent with the PPS in the following notable ways:  
16  
OLT-22-003583  
Part IV of the PPS supports the achievement of efficient development  
patterns. Section 1.1.1 e) promotes the integration of land use planning,  
growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and  
infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns,  
optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land  
consumption and servicing cost. As it relates to this policy, the proposed  
development aims to make efficient use of existing infrastructure, which in  
turn will minimize land consumption and servicing costs.  
Sections 1.1.3.1 and 1.1.3.2 provide that settlement areas shall be the  
focus of growth and development. Land use patterns within settlement  
areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which “are  
appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service  
facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their  
unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion”. As it relates to this policy, the  
proposed development provides the desired increase in the supply of a  
mix and range of housing types and makes use of existing infrastructure,  
which was originally planned, approved and available to accommodate the  
development of Phase 4.  
[52] In summary, the proposed development supports PPS policies by providing an  
increase in the supply of a mix and range of housing types while contributing to the  
efficient use of existing public infrastructure.  
A Place to Grow - Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020  
[53] The Growth Plan is a long-term plan that works with other provincial plans to  
provide a framework for growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region.  
17  
OLT-22-003583  
[54] Given the nature of the proposal, location of the Subject Lands, including existing  
land use designations and current DPS approval status, the applications conform with  
the Growth Plan in the following notable ways:  
The proposed development is located in an area approved and designated  
for residential development and uses that are in conformity with OPA 36.  
The proposed DPS aims to increase density and permit an additional  
housing type (townhouses) from what is currently approved, being more  
consistent with the existing land use designations. By providing more  
housing options, the development supports the achievement of complete  
communities insofar as it provides an increase in housing stock for a wider  
range of household sizes, ages and incomes.  
The Current Applications optimize the use of existing land supply in a  
designated settlement area in a more compact built form while making  
better use of existing and planned infrastructure.  
The Current Applications also support the forecasted growth on lands  
currently permitted and draft approved for residential development,  
thereby assisting the Township in achieving its density target of 32  
residents and jobs combined per hectare.  
[55] In summary, the Current Applications generally do not deviate from the  
previously approved DPS. The proposed development, which accommodates  
residential uses within a settlement area, meets the goals and objectives of the Growth  
Plan, including the achievement of the minimum intensification targets established by  
the Growth Plan.  
18  
OLT-22-003583  
County of Simcoe Official Plan  
[56] The Subject Lands are located within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area and  
designated as Settlement as per Schedule 5.1: Land Use Designations of the CSOP.  
The Current Applications conform with the CSOP in the following notable ways:  
The Current Applications seek to develop lands which are located within a  
settlement area, have existing draft plan approved status, appropriate land  
use designations and can be effectively serviced while contributing to the  
range of housing options within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area.  
The proposed development will minimize land consumption through higher  
density development (in conformity with OPA 36) while making use of  
existing services and thus minimizing servicing costs.  
The required infrastructure and public service facilities are approved and  
exist, facilitating cost effective servicing of the proposed development. The  
Current Applications promote sustainability and energy efficiency through  
increased densities, which contribute to a complete community through  
additional housing types. The CSOP specifically prioritizes infill and  
intensification proposals, such as the Current Applications, that utilize  
existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The previous phases of  
the 2001 Subdivision have all sold out, demonstrating the need for new  
units to be made available.  
The proposed development is considered intensification in the context of  
the CSOP and assists the Township in achieving its minimum  
intensification target. Further, as previously indicated, the proposal also  
meets the density target of 32 residents and jobs combined per hectare.  
[57] In summary, the Current Applications generally do not deviate from the  
previously approved DPS, except as it relates to increased density which is supported  
by the implementation of OPA 36. The proposed development, which accommodates  
19  
OLT-22-003583  
residential uses within a settlement area, meets the goals and objectives and conforms  
to the CSOP.  
Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan  
[58] The Subject Lands are located within the Horseshoe Valley Development Node  
and are designated as Horseshoe Valley Medium Density Residential and Horseshoe  
Valley Low Density Residential. The Current Applications conform to the Township OP  
in the following notable ways:  
The Subject Lands are located within a settlement area, where full sewer  
services are anticipated to be available in the future and municipal water  
services currently exist. The proposed development will be serviced  
through an extension of the existing municipal water system and through  
the existing Skyline Waste Water Treatment Plant with the intent to  
connect to the municipal wastewater system when available.  
The proposed development is located on lands within the Horseshoe  
Valley Settlement Area, a focal point for growth within the Municipality and  
which has been designated, zoned and DPS approved for residential use  
and development since 2001. The proposed applications aim to expand  
housing types and increase proposed densities on the Subject Lands in  
conformity with OPA 36 by efficiently utilizing development lands for  
medium and low-density residential uses. The development will also take  
advantage of planned and existing infrastructure within a planned  
community.  
The Subject Lands are part of a comprehensive development plan for the  
area. Three of the five phases of development have already been  
registered. The proposed Phase 4 development will aid in achieving a  
complete community with a wider range of housing types while  
maintaining the character of the area. It will be serviced in a manner  
20  
OLT-22-003583  
similar to existing development and previous phases. A large park area is  
also planned for the future Phase 5 for current and future residents of the  
area.  
The proposed development pattern has been designed to provide logical  
and efficient extensions of all municipal services. The proposed  
applications will facilitate a more efficient use of the land than what is  
currently permitted according to the existing zoning by-law while  
contributing to the tax base to ensure no inefficiencies or decline in  
municipal services will result from the development.  
The Subject Lands will be serviced through an extension of the existing  
municipal water system and existing Skyline Waste Water Treatment Plan  
with the ultimate sanitary solution being a full municipal system as  
identified through the ongoing Township Master Servicing Plan.  
The proposed development provides a wider range of residential uses  
than what is currently approved in a consolidated manner. The site is  
surrounded by recreational uses and will be an integral part of a mixed-  
use community, adding residents and consumers to assist in the viability  
of commercial businesses.  
There are no known or identified natural heritage features within the limits  
of the development. The NVCA has indicated no objections to the Current  
Applications subject to the proposed conditions of approval.  
The proposed development conforms with various policies of the  
Township OP based on permitted density (permitted being 30 units per  
hectare, and proposed being approximately 14 units per hectare) and built  
form (being single detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings).  
The form of servicing proposed has been established in consultation with  
Township staff and appropriate agencies. The required studies have been  
completed and revised as needed in support of the proposed servicing  
strategy. Neither Township staff nor applicable/appropriate agencies have  
21  
OLT-22-003583  
expressed concern with the proposed form of servicing. The required  
studies submitted in support of the Current Applications include:  
-
-
-
-
Functional Servicing Report, Gerrits Engineering (2021)  
Geotechnical Report, Terraprobe (2015)  
Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, Amick Consultants (2013)  
Traffic Impact Study, Pearson Engineering and JD Engineering  
(2014)  
-
Natural Heritage Report, Azimuth Environmental Consulting (2016)  
The proposed development represents the next phase of the Horseshoe  
Ridge development and can be adequately serviced. The Current  
Applications conform to the policies contained in sections C14.3.6.1  
through C14.3.6.8 of the Township OP.  
[59] In summary, the Current Applications generally do not deviate from the  
previously approved DPS, except as it relates to increased density which is supported  
by the implementation of OPA 36. The proposed development, which accommodates  
residential uses within a settlement area, meets the goals and objectives and conforms  
to the Township OP.  
Summary and Conclusion while setting aside the SWM facilities ownership issues  
[60] In summary, while setting aside the SWM facilities ownership issues, the Tribunal  
finds that the Current Applications have sufficient regard for the applicable sections of  
the Act (s. 2 and the criteria listed at s. 51(24)), are consistent with the PPS, conform to  
the Growth Plan, the County and Township OPs, and represent good planning in the  
public interest. Setting aside the conditions requiring conveyance of third-party-owned  
lands, the DPS Conditions proposed by the Township are reasonable in accordance  
with s. 51(25) of the Act.  
22  
OLT-22-003583  
Policy Context: the SWM Facilities Ownership Issues  
[61] As stated previously, this case is about the ownership status of the lands which  
occupy the Phase 4 SWM facilities. The Township wants these lands conveyed to it as  
part of the DPS Conditions. The Applicant is asking that the DPS not include such  
conditions.  
[62] At the center of these issues is an easement that was registered on title of the  
Golf Course Lands in 2001. This Easement essentially provides rights to the owner(s) of  
the 2001 Subdivision Lands as it relates to the subject SWM facilities. The Easement  
runs with the 2001 Subdivision Lands. The parties are in agreement that, if this  
Easement is left undisturbed, the subject Easement rights will eventually pass on to the  
individual property owners of the subdivision, as these lots are sold to homeowners, and  
the Applicant will eventually no longer hold any such rights once it no longer has any  
property interests in the 2001 Subdivision Lands. The Tribunal also finds that the same  
will occur in relation to any lands that are conveyed to the Municipality, provided that  
such Easement rights are not released.  
[63] It is noteworthy that SWM Pond #5 is currently being used to serve the SWM  
needs of the Ridgewood Court subphase of the 2001 Subdivision, and a number of  
other SWM ponds located on the Golf Course Lands currently serve the SWM needs of  
the other phases of the 2001 Subdivision, despite the fact that these lands are located  
on the Golf Course Lands and not otherwise owned by the Municipality.  
[64] Despite the fact that SWM Pond #5 and other SWM ponds on the Golf Course  
Lands are currently serving the SWM needs of the 2001 Subdivision, the Township  
takes the position that it is not satisfied with the current arrangements for the SWM  
facilities planned for Phase 4 (including SWM Pond #5) and, as a result, it insists that  
the new revised DPS Conditions include a requirement to convey ownership of the  
subject SWM lands to the Township.  
23  
OLT-22-003583  
[65] The Township has identified two key reasons for their position:  
1.  
2.  
Even if Easement rights or responsibilities are somehow provided to the  
Township, the terms of the Easement are not acceptable; and  
The Township’s proposed conditions, as it relates to conveyance of the  
SWM facilities lands, are consistent with the PPS, have due regard for s. 2  
and s. 51(24) of the Act, conform with the Township’s OP and otherwise  
represents good planning.  
Terms of the Easement and Associated Rights  
[66] As mentioned above, the Applicant has tendered a Legal Access Offer to,  
ostensibly, provide further rights to the Township associated with the subject SWM  
facilities.  
[67] In response to this conceptual proposal, the Township submitted that the terms  
of the Easement are not adequate and, consequently, the Legal Access Offer would  
provide unsatisfactory rights to access / maintain / repair / etc. the subject SWM  
facilities on the Golf Course Lands. The Township raises the following points in support  
of its opposition to any arrangement that falls short of it obtaining full title ownership of  
the SWM facilities lands:  
The Easement is currently a matter subject to litigation;  
The terms of the Easement are not sufficiently clear;  
The Easement contains provisions that could hinder the exercise of rights  
thereunder by any party benefitting from the Easement; and  
In general, the terms of the Easement are not adequate for the purposes  
of ensuring adequate long-term maintenance and operation of the SWM  
facilities.  
24  
OLT-22-003583  
[68] As it relates to the above point concerning litigation associated with the  
Easement, the Township submitted that “[t]he Township’s concerns about the meaning  
of terms of the Easement are validated by the fact that HVD has initiated litigation  
concerning the Easement”.  
[69] However, the Tribunal notes, nothing was provided to clearly substantiate the  
subject matter or the merits of that litigation. The Tribunal therefore finds that it is not in  
a position to assess the merits of that litigation; nor is this the proper forum to do so in  
any event. As a result, the Tribunal will disregard these submissions. The Tribunal will  
instead remain focussed on the actual terms of the Easement from a planning policy  
perspective, to assess whether or not the Easement is adequate to provide the  
Township with sufficient access and other rights associated with the SWM facilities  
located on the Golf Course Lands.  
[70] The Tribunal considered the other submissions of the Township as it relates to  
ambiguity of the terms of the Easement, including:  
whether or not the specific terms of the Easement are sufficiently clear;  
whether or not the Easement contains provisions that could unacceptably  
hinder the exercise of rights thereunder by any party benefitting from it;  
whether or not paragraph 5 of the Easement is capable of multiple  
interpretations respecting when work may be scheduled;  
how the terms of Easement, and in particular paragraphs 3 and 5, apply  
when the Golf Course Lands are no longer being used as a golf course.  
whether or not the terms of the Easement include any general right of  
drainage over the Golf Course Lands.  
25  
OLT-22-003583  
[71] The Tribunal finds that the terms of the Easement are sufficiently clear and  
comprehensive, read in its entirety, as it relates to providing appropriate access to the  
subject SWM facilities located on the Golf Course Lands.  
[72] Of particular note, the Tribunal finds no ambiguity in Term 1 whatsoever, which  
provides comprehensive and complete “free and uninterrupted and unobstructed right  
and Easement to construct, operate and maintain […] such Stormwater Management  
Facilities”. The Tribunal also finds no unacceptable hinderances of such rights. Term 1  
further includes a general right of drainage over the Golf Course Lands, using the words  
“under or across” in relation to “Stormwater Management Facilities”, which indicates  
surface drainage overland as well as subsurface drainage.  
[73] As it relates to any restrictions set out in Term 5, the Tribunal finds that this term  
does not unacceptably hinder access, etc., on account of the property being used as a  
golf course. The “emergency” caveat ensures that access, work, etc., may still be done  
as needed in a timely way.  
[74] In general, the Tribunal also finds that the Easement, read in its entirety, remains  
clear and unambiguous despite the Golf Course Lands ceasing operations as a golf  
course, including Terms 3 and 5. The Tribunal finds that, as a result of the fact that the  
Golf Course Lands are no longer operating as a golf course, any incumbrances outlined  
in Term 5 simply do not apply.  
[75] In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the terms of the Easement are clear and  
unambiguous. The Easement provides terms which sufficiently provide both the  
Township and the County with comprehensive access, maintenance and construction  
rights with respect to the SWM facilities located on the Golf Course Lands. As a  
consequence, the effectiveness of the Applicants conceptual Legal Access Offer is not  
defeated due to the terms of the Easement.  
26  
OLT-22-003583  
Policy Support of the Parties’ Respective DPS Conditions  
[76] The appeal of the subject DPS Conditions is premised upon non-compliance with  
s. 51(25) of the Act, which reads:  
The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a  
plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are  
reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for  
the subdivision […] [emphasis added]  
[77] In the present case, to succeed with this appeal, the Applicant must prove the  
following:  
1.  
2.  
That the conditions proposed by the Municipality are not reasonable; and  
That the alternative conditions proposed by the Applicant comply with the  
Act and are otherwise supported by the applicable provincial and  
municipal planning policies.  
[78] To repeat, there is no contest between the parties from a policy standpoint  
regarding any of the Township’s conditions, save and except for those conditions that  
require conveyance of those parts of the Golf Course Lands that house the SWM  
facilities designed to serve the SWM needs of Phase 4. As a result, and based on the  
evidence of the parties’ respective experts, the Tribunal accepts that all of the  
Township’s proposed conditions, save and except for those requiring conveyance of  
third-party lands to the Municipality, are both reasonable and supported by the  
applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.  
[79] Upon this finding, the Tribunal’s analysis will focus on the reasonableness of  
those parts of the Township’s proposed conditions that require the conveyance of third-  
party-owned lands to the Municipality (being conditions 21, 26(e) and 42 of the  
Township’s DPS Conditions, appended as Attachment 3), followed by an analysis to  
27  
OLT-22-003583  
determine whether the alternative conditions proposed by the Applicant (as appended  
as Attachment 4) are supported by provincial and municipal policies.  
Reasonableness of the Township’s DPS Conditions  
[80] The crux of this case is whether or not it is reasonable to require a developer to  
convey lands that it does not own to a municipality as a condition of a DPS. There is no  
question that, in general, the conveyance of lands housing SWM facilities to a  
municipality is preferred and supported by policy (see PPS policy 1.6.6.2 in particular,  
as examined in greater detail below). However, where it is not feasible to convey such  
lands, especially those lands that have already been planned, approved and  
constructed to house SWM facilities off-site, it is unreasonable to invoke such a  
requirement because the developer has no power to satisfy the condition.  
[81] Both parties acknowledge that the elements to be considered in assessing  
whether a condition is reasonable is set out in Taylor v. Guelph (City), [1998] O.M.B.D.  
No. 869, being: (1) relevancy; (2) necessity; and (3) equity. For the reasons that follow,  
the Tribunal finds the impugned conditions to be relevant, but neither necessary nor  
equitable.  
[82] The Tribunal finds the conditions to be relevant because the Township has an  
obvious interest in the future access, management and upkeep of the subject SWM  
facilities.  
[83] In support of its position, the Applicant drew the Tribunal’s attention to  
Havenwood Properties (Central Limited) v. Brampton (City), 2019 LNONLPAT 836. In  
that case, the Tribunal held that it could not impose conditions that would require the  
consent and action of a third-party. In that case, the Tribunal found those conditions to  
be patently unreasonable and virtually guaranteed that the development would be  
unable to proceed in any practical sense.  
28  
OLT-22-003583  
[84] The Tribunal finds the same in the present case. Such a condition is  
unreasonable for being unnecessary, because the SWM facilities that are located off-  
site, being planned, approved and constructed to serve the requisite SWM needs of  
Phase 4, are subject to an easement which provides the Township (and County) with  
sufficient access and other rights to maintain / improve the facilities as needed. In other  
words, a transfer of ownership is unnecessary for it to serve its planning purposes.  
[85] The Tribunal further finds these conditions to be unnecessary given that other  
SWM facilities for Phases 1 to 3 and the Ridgewood Court subphase have apparently  
operated without issue despite the facilities (including SWM Pond #5) being located on  
lands not owned by the Municipality.  
[86] The Tribunal also finds these contested conditions inequitable, given that it  
essentially compels the Applicant to broker a sale of the Golf Course Lands without any  
power to do so. At the same time, the Township could, in theory, if it absolutely  
determined that it must own these lands, expropriate those parts of the Golf Course  
Lands containing the SWM facilities. The Tribunal does not accept the Township’s  
submissions claiming “[expropriation] could be construed as an attempt by the  
Township to interfere with the existing contractual relations of the owner of the Golf  
Course Lands”, as it provided no evidence to support such a contention.  
[87] The Township argues that the reasonableness of requiring the conveyance of all  
lands containing SWM facilities is supported by polices of the PPS. The Tribunal  
recognizes the following polices of the PPS as being the most relevant:  
1.6.3.  
Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure  
and public service facilities:  
a)  
the use of existing infrastructure and public service  
facilities should be optimized; and  
b)  
opportunities for adaptive re-use should be  
considered, wherever feasible.  
1.6.6.1 Planning for sewage and water services shall:  
a)  
accommodate forecasted growth in a manner that  
promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing:  
29  
OLT-22-003583  
1.  
2.  
municipal sewage services and municipal  
water services; and  
private communal sewage services and  
private communal water services, where  
municipal sewage services and municipal  
water services are not available or feasible;  
[…]  
d)  
integrate servicing and land use considerations at all  
stages of the planning process; and  
e)  
be in accordance with the servicing hierarchy outlined  
through policies 1.6.6.2, 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.4 and 1.6.6.5.  
For clarity, where municipal sewage services and  
municipal water services are not available, planned or  
feasible, planning authorities have the ability to  
consider the use of the servicing options set out  
through policies 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.4, and 1.6.6.5 provided  
that the specified conditions are met  
1.6.6.2 Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are  
the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas to support  
protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to  
human health and safety. Within settlement areas with existing  
municipal sewage services and municipal water services,  
intensification and  
1.6.6.3 Where municipal sewage services and municipal water  
services are not available, planned or feasible, private  
communal sewage services and private communal water  
services are the preferred form of servicing for multi-unit/lot  
development to support protection of the environment and  
minimize potential risks to human health and safety.  
1.6.6.7 Planning for stormwater management shall:  
a)  
be integrated with planning for sewage and water  
services and ensure that systems are optimized,  
feasible and financially viable over the long term;  
[…]  
f)  
promote stormwater management best practices,  
including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water  
conservation and efficiency, and low impact  
development.  
[88] The following definition is provided in the PPS:  
Municipal sewage services: means a sewage works within the meaning  
of section 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act that is owned or  
operated by a municipality, including centralized and decentralized  
systems.  
[89] Pursuant to s. 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the following definitions  
apply:  
30  
OLT-22-003583  
“sewage works” means any works for the collection, transmission,  
treatment and disposal of sewage or any part of such works, but does  
not include plumbing to which the Building Code Act, 1992 applies;  
“sewage” includes drainage, storm water, commercial wastes and  
industrial wastes and such other matter or substance as is specified by  
the regulations; [emphasis added]  
[90] The Tribunal agrees with the Township insofar as policy 1.6.6.2 of the PPS  
clearly indicates that “[m]unicipal sewage services and municipal water services are the  
preferred form of servicing for settlement areas”, and the definition of “municipal sewage  
services” includes “sewage works” that are “owned or operated by a municipality”.  
However, the PPS clearly contemplates scenarios where these works are not  
necessarily owned by the municipality, given the word “or” (as per “owned or operated”)  
included in the definition of “municipal sewage services”.  
[91] Furthermore, policy 1.6.6.3 of the PPS provides even greater clarity insofar as  
the PPS contemplates circumstances where privately held sewage works are policy-  
supported. Policy 1.6.6.3 states that “[w]here municipal sewage services and municipal  
water services are not available, planned or feasible, private communal sewage  
services and private communal water services are the preferred form of servicing”. In  
the present case, the Tribunal finds that the evidence clearly shows that municipally-  
owned sewage works (as it relates to SWM Pond #5) are neither planned nor feasible.  
[92] The balance of the Township’s submissions in support of its position ultimately  
always circles back to the same considerations as expressed above in relation to policy  
1.6.6.2 of the PPS. It is therefore clear to the Tribunal that the issues of this case are  
principally determined in accordance with the above noted sections of the PPS. The  
written submissions of both parties further reflect this.  
[93] The Tribunal also finds that the Township has failed to sufficiently consider those  
PPS policies, which speak of using and optimizing existing / planned infrastructure and  
public service facilities. The Tribunal finds that these polices are not supported by the  
31  
OLT-22-003583  
Township’s version of the DPS Conditions which have the effect of frustrating the  
Applicant’s efforts to use and optimize the existing / planned SWM facilities located on  
the Golf Course Lands.  
[94] In conclusion on this point, the Tribunal finds that those DPS Conditions  
proposed by the Township, which compel the conveyance of third-party-owned lands, to  
be unreasonable contrary to s. 51(25) of the Act, and also inconsistent with PPS  
policies designed to use and optimize existing / planned infrastructure.  
DPS Conditions Proposed by the Applicant  
[95] The Tribunal generally finds that the DPS Conditions proposed by the Applicant  
(appended as Attachment 4) to be reasonable pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act and  
supported by the policies outlined in the PPS associated with making efficient use and  
optimization of existing / planned infrastructure.  
[96] Furthermore, the Applicant’s proposed DPS Conditions have sufficient regard for  
matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, including subsection (f), and the  
criteria set out at s. 51(24) of the Act, including subsections (a) and (i) in particular.  
[97] Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal notes that the evidence also shows that  
the Applicant has tendered a Legal Access Offer to the Township, which ostensibly may  
secure additional rights to the Township associated with the subject SWM facilities.  
[98] While lacking particulars, this fact is relevant given that the PPS clearly indicates  
that SWM facilities be managed in accordance with the servicing hierarchy outlined  
through policies 1.6.6.2, 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.4 and 1.6.6.5. By plain reading of these sections,  
it is clear that the intent of the PPS is to vest as much control over such works as  
possible in the hands of the municipality. This objective cannot be ignored by the  
Tribunal. While this does not necessarily mean ownership, and ownership has been  
found to be infeasible and unplanned in the present case, the stated hierarchy  
32  
OLT-22-003583  
nevertheless directs this Tribunal to prefer conditions that grants the municipality with as  
much control over SWM works as is practicably possible.  
[99] With this in mind, the Tribunal notes that neither of the parties presented the  
Tribunal with a version of DPS Conditions (see Attachments 3 and 4) that contemplates  
a method to provide further rights to the Municipality associated with the off-site SWM  
facilities such as through the aforementioned Legal Access Offer. This is despite the  
Applicant indicating that such a method may be at hand. As a result, this Tribunal held a  
brief VH with the parties on April 19, 2022 to discuss the possible merits of adding  
conditions to reflect what has been referred to as the Legal Access Offer.  
The April 19, 2022 Hearing and Jointly Submitted DPS Conditions  
[100] At the April 19, 2022 hearing, the Tribunal delivered the above findings to the  
parties orally, insofar as the Tribunal found that the Township’s conditions to require  
conveyance of the third-party-owned lands are unreasonable, and that the terms of the  
Easement are unambiguous and provide a comprehensive and complete assortment of  
access and other rights in relation to the SWM facilities located on the Golf Course  
Lands. The Tribunal followed by asking the parties for submissions on the merits of  
adding DPS conditions to reflect what has been referred to as the Legal Access Offer.  
[101] At the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that the terms of the Easement do not  
allow a formal “assignment” of the subject Easement rights, in the legal sense of the  
term, but it is possible to enter into an agency agreement with the Township as it relates  
to access, operation, maintenance and repair the subject SWM facilities set out in the  
Easement. Furthermore, the Applicant confirmed that the recognition of such an agency  
agreement could be included as a condition of sale in relation to the Phase 4  
development lots. The parties also acknowledged that the Township will probably  
receive some automatic Easement rights together with lands that are conveyed to it as  
part of the Phase 4 development (i.e., together with lands for roads, parks and  
municipal services).  
33  
OLT-22-003583  
[102] At the hearing, the Township was receptive of the concept of obtaining as much  
control over the subject SWM facilities on the Golf Course Lands as possible, and  
indicated an interest in pursuing any such DPS Conditions which would provide such  
benefits.  
[103] The parties were then invited and agreed to work on a joint revision of the  
proposed conditions that reflect both the Tribunal’s Decision regarding the  
unreasonableness of the Township’s requirement to convey ownership of the third-  
party-owned lands, and those polices of the PPS which indicate a preference to  
maximize the municipality’s rights and associated control over SWM facilities. The  
parties were further asked to provide any supporting planning evidence required to  
support such conditions in writing.  
[104] As requested, the Tribunal received the jointly submitted revised version of the  
DPS conditions which reflect the above (appended as Attachment 5). Two conditions  
were added, at Nos. 54 and 55 (collectively, the “Agency Conditions”), which read as  
follows:  
54.  
That prior to final approval the Owner enter into an Agency  
Agreement with the Township of Oro-Medonte in regards to the access,  
operation, maintenance and repair of certain Stormwater Management  
Facilities, which shall be attached as a schedule to the Subdivision  
Agreement registered on title.  
55.  
That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause to  
the satisfaction of the Township of Oro-Medonte: "The owner shall  
include in all agreements of purchase and sale a clause requiring  
prospective purchasers to acknowledge the contents of the Agency  
Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Oro-Medonte  
attached as Schedule “X” to this Agreement”.  
[105] Through a supplementary affidavit, Mr. Vella testified that the purpose of the  
Agency Agreement is to allow the Township, as the Applicant’s Agent, to operate,  
maintain and repair the SWM facilities within the parameters of what is permitted within  
the existing Easement. Furthermore, subsequent owners of each lot would  
34  
OLT-22-003583  
acknowledge the existence of the Agency Agreement through individual agreements of  
purchase and sale.  
[106] Mr. Vella accordingly opined that the Agency Conditions meet the requirements  
under the Act, are consistent with provincial policy, and constitute good planning for the  
following reasons:  
The Agency Conditions have appropriate regard for matters of provincial  
interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and, particularly, the adequate  
provision and efficient use of existing sewage services;  
The Agency Conditions have regard for the criteria required by s. 51(24)  
and are reasonable in accordance with s. 51(25) of the Act by supporting  
and facilitating access to and the maintenance, operation and repair by  
the Township, while ensuring that prospective purchasers are made aware  
of the agreement by including the Agency Agreement within the  
Subdivision Agreement, registered on title;  
The Agency Conditions are consistent with the PPS as follows:  
-
Section 1.6.6.3 of the PPS recognizes that where full municipal  
sewage and water services are not available, private communal  
sewage and water services are the preferred form of servicing, and  
the proposed SWM facilities constitute a private communal sewage  
service as permitted by the PPS and consistent with the existing  
service levels within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area.  
-
Section 1.6.6.2 of the PPS recognizes full municipal sewage and  
water services as the preferred form of servicing for settlement  
areas, with municipal sewage services being defined as “owned or  
operated by a municipality”, and the Agency Conditions will  
facilitate Municipal operation of the SWM Facilities. [emphasis  
added]  
35  
OLT-22-003583  
[107] The Tribunal accepts this additional evidence and similarly finds that the Agency  
Conditions, as set out above, meet the requirements of the Act, are consistent with the  
PPS, and generally constitute good planning in the public interest. Consequently, the  
Tribunal finds that these additional conditions should be added to the version submitted  
by the Applicant as Attachment 4, constituting the jointly submitted version of DPS  
Conditions appended as Attachment 5.  
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  
[108] The Tribunal finds that the Current Applications have sufficient regard for the  
applicable sections of the Act (s. 2 and the criteria of s. 51(24)), are consistent with the  
PPS, and conform to the Growth Plan, the CSOP, and the Township OP, and the  
proposed ZBA and DPS (including conditions, as jointly submitted) otherwise represent  
good planning and are in the public interest.  
[109] Furthermore, the Tribunal confirms that it has had regard for the decisions by the  
Township in relation to this matter, as well as the information and material that the  
Township considered in making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1 of the Act.  
ORDER  
[110] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:  
1.  
The appeal is allowed in part and the instruments are approved as follows:  
(a)  
By-law No. 97-95 of the Township of Oro-Medonte is hereby  
amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal  
authorizes the Municipal Clerk of Township of Oro-Medonte to  
assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.  
36  
OLT-22-003583  
(b)  
The Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Innovative Planning  
Solutions dated April 26, 2018, attached to this Order as  
Attachment 2, is approved subject to fulfillment of the conditions  
attached to this Order as Attachment 5. Pursuant to subsection  
51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Township of Oro-Medonte 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 Planning Act.  
K.R. Andrews”  
K.R. ANDREWS  
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.  
37  
OLT-22-003583  
OLT-22-003583 Attachment 1  
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO MEDONTE  
ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER -2021  
“A By-law of the Township of Oro Medonte to amend Zoning By-Law No. 97- 95 by  
rezoning portions of the lands described as Part of Lot 4, Concession 4 (Oro) in the  
Township of Oro Medonte, County of Simcoe from Residential 1 Exception 140 (R1*140)  
to Residential 1 Exception  
(R1* X), Residential 1 Exception (R1*Y), Residential 1  
Exception Hold (R1*Y)(H), and Residential 2 Exception (R2* ), as depicted on Schedule  
A attached hereto”  
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is  
empowered to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the  
Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.13, as amended;  
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte has  
determined a need to rezone the lands described above;  
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte deems  
the said application to be in conformity with the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-  
Medonte, as amended, and deems it advisable to amend By- law 97-95.  
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as  
follows:  
1.  
That Schedule “A15” to By-law 97-95 is hereby further amended by rezoning  
those lands described as Part of Lot 4, Concession 4 (Oro) in the Township of  
Oro Medonte from Residential One Exception 140 (R1*140) to Residential One  
Exception - (R1* X) Zone, Residential One Exception (R1*Y) and Residential  
Two Exception - (R2*  
) Zone as shown on Schedule “A” to this By-law.  
2.  
3.  
Notwithstanding Table A1 of Zoning By-law 97-95, only the following uses are  
permitted on lands zoned Residential One Exception (R1*- Y):  
Single detached dwellings  
Accessory uses  
THAT the (H) symbol that appears on Schedule “A” attached hereto identifies a  
Holding Zone pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,  
c. P.13. This indicates that the lands so zoned cannot be used for a purpose  
permitted by the Residential 1 Exception (R1*Y) zone until the (H) symbol is  
removed pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act. The (H) provision shall be  
lifted upon completion of the following matters to the satisfaction of The  
Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte:  
38  
OLT-22-003583  
That the owner demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Township that a suitable  
building envelope or envelopes can be placed on the lands to be rezoned  
Residential One Exception Hold (R1*Y)(H).  
4.  
Notwithstanding Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95, single detached dwellings on  
lands zoned Residential One Exception - (R1* X) and Residential One Exception  
(R1*Y) shall be permitted the following provisions:  
For Single Detached Dwellings:  
.
.
.
Minimum Lot area of  
Minimum Lot Frontage of  
Minimum Front Yard  
420 m²  
14.5 m  
o
o
to dwelling  
to garage  
4.5 m  
6.0 m  
.
Minimum Rear Yard  
o
o
to dwelling  
to deck  
7.5 m  
4.5 m  
3.0 m  
1.2 m  
11.0 m  
50 %  
.
.
.
.
Minimum Exterior Side Yard  
Minimum Interior Side Yard  
Maximum Building Height  
Maximum Building Coverage  
5.  
Notwithstanding Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95, townhouse dwellings on lands  
zoned Residential Two Exception - (R2* - ) Zone shall be permitted the following  
provisions:  
For townhouse dwellings:  
.
.
.
Minimum Lot area of  
Minimum Lot Frontage of  
Minimum Front Yard  
320 m²  
9.0 m  
o
o
to dwelling  
to garage  
4.5 m  
6.0 m  
.
Minimum Rear Yard  
o
o
to dwelling  
to deck  
7.5 m  
4.5 m  
3.0 m  
.
.
Minimum Exterior Side Yard  
Minimum Interior Side Yard  
o
o
for interior unit  
for end unit  
0 m  
1.5 m  
11.0 m  
50 %  
.
.
Maximum Building Height  
Maximum Building Coverage  
6.  
7.  
That all other provisions of the Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, shall apply.  
That Schedule “A”, attached, does and shall form part of this By-law.  
39  
OLT-22-003583  
8.  
That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of passing  
thereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990,  
as amended.  
BY-LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME THIS  
, 2021.  
DAY OF  
Mayor  
Clerk