Ontario Land Tribunal  
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement  
du territoire  
ISSUE DATE: June 10, 2022  
CASE NO(S).:  
(Formerly PL210156)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
Applicant and Appellant:  
Tammy Abbotts  
Application to amend Zoning By-law No.  
018-65 - Refusal or neglect of County  
of Grey to make a decision  
Residential One (R1-1)  
Residential Two (R2)  
To permit the creation of lots for 22  
semi-detached dwellings  
Lots 35-39, SW Side of Bay Street  
Town of The Blue Mountains  
Existing Zoning:  
Proposed Zoning:  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
OLT Case Name:  
Abbotts v. Blue Mountains (Town)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
Applicant and Appellant:  
Tammy Abbotts  
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of  
County of Grey to make a decision  
To permit the creation of lots for 22  
semi-detached dwellings  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality File No.:  
Lots 35-39, SW Side of Bay Street  
Town of The Blue Mountains  
OLT Case No.:  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
May 24-26, 2022 by video hearing  
Tammy Abbots (“Appellant”)  
Al Burton  
Town of The Blue Mountains (“Town”)  
County of Grey (“County”)  
Leo Longo  
Errol Treslan  
Grey Condominium Corporation No. 11  
Samantha Lampert  
Grace O’Brien  
Harbour West Residents Group Inc. (“HWRG”) Harry Burkman  
The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by Tammy Abbots (“Appellant”)  
under subsections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act with respect to the Town  
of The Blue Mountains’ and the County of Grey’s failure to deal with the  
Appellant’s proposed application for a Zoning By-law Amendment and associated  
Draft Plan of Subdivision within the prescribed timeframe.  
The lands are legally described as Lots 35-39, Southwest Side of Bay  
Street, Former Town of Thornbury, Town of The Blue Mountains, County of Grey.  
The subject lands consist of a 1.01-hectare site that is currently vacant and is  
designated as "Community Living Area" in the Town of The Blue Mountains  
Official Plan ("Town OP").  
The subject lands are located in the Northwest quadrant of Thornbury,  
between existing residential uses along Lakeshore Drive and Huron Street on the  
East side of Lansdowne Street North, and South of the unopened Bay Street West  
road allowance. The subject lands are vacant lots with frontage on Lansdowne  
Street North and the unconstructed road allowances of Bay Street West and  
Victoria Street North.  
Under the Town's OP, the subject lands are currently designated  
Community Living Area". They are currently zoned R-1 and are within holding  
zone areas H3 and H4A within the Town’s Zoning By-law 2018-65.  
The Tribunal received, on May 16, 2022, executed Minutes of Settlement  
between the Appellant, the Town, the County and GCC11. The Parties also  
submitted a draft Zoning By-Law and a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision along  
with Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, which were attached to the Minutes of  
The revised proposal reduces the number of proposed lots from 22 to 20,  
consisting of 4 single detached lots and 16 semi-detached lots. The subject lands  
have a total area of approximately 1.01 hectares, resulting in a proposed density  
of approximately 20 units per gross hectare.  
7] The proposed units will have “as of right” zoning permissions for accessory  
apartments under the Zoning By-law.  
The Harbour West Residents Group Inc. (“HWRG”) has not consented to  
this proposed settlement.  
The Tribunal received and marked the following documents as Exhibits to  
the Hearing:  
Exhibit 1 Joint Document Book  
Exhibit 2 Minutes of Settlement dated April 18, 2022  
Exhibit 3 Township of The Blue Mountains (“TBM”) Supplementary  
Document Book  
Exhibit 4 HWRG Supplementary Document Book  
Exhibit 5 – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”)  
Exhibit 6 – TBM’s Cross-examination documents for Scott Taylor  
Exhibit 7 – HWRG’s Witness Examination Book  
Exhibit 8 – Scott Taylor’s Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty  
Exhibit 9 HWRG Preliminary Matters  
Exhibit 10 Index for Visual evidence by HWRG  
Exhibit 11 Gordon Russell version of ASF, not signed  
Exhibit 12 Affordable Price Points in the Town of The Blue  
Mountains, May 2022  
10] The Tribunal dealt with several technical objections raised by Mr. Burkman,  
counsel for the HWRG, prior to the start of the evidentiary portion of the Hearing:  
A. Inclusion of Tabs 5, 6 and 7 in the Joint Document Book (Exhibit 1)  
11] Mr. Burkman questioned which applications were actually before the  
Tribunal at this point in time, as the proposed development has undergone some  
revisions to reach a settlement. He submitted that Tabs 5, 6 and 7, which contain  
the revised Draft Plan and Zoning By-Law with Schedules, should be removed as  
these documents have not been formally submitted to the Tribunal.  
12] Mr. Burton, on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that Mr. Burkman was not  
familiar with the normal planning process before the Tribunal, and that it is often  
the case where Parties work together in advance of a Hearing to scope issues and  
make revisions in an effort to reach a settlement and reduce Hearing time before  
the Tribunal.  
13] This submission was supported by Messrs. Longo and Treslan, on behalf of  
the Town and County, respectively.  
14] Upon consideration of the matter, the Tribunal agrees with the settling  
Parties that Mr. Burkman’s objection has no merit and that Tabs 5, 6 and 7 are to  
remain in the Joint Document Book.  
B. Should the Applications be considered complete?  
15] Mr. Burkman questioned whether the applications before the Tribunal  
should be deemed complete. He submitted that, as the proposed plan has  
undergone several submissions, no additional background studies have been  
submitted in support.  
16] Mr. Burton disagreed with Mr. Burkman’s submission, stating that the  
revisions to the plan have been minor in nature and undertaken in consultation  
with the other Parties.  
17] The Tribunal notes that the applications have been processed by both the  
Town and County staff, resulting in a proposed settlement on consent of all Parties  
except HWRG. There is no question that the applications should be considered  
C. Request to add some additional issues to the Issues List  
18] Mr. Burkman, on behalf of HWRG, requested that two additional issues be  
added to the Issues List: namely subsection 24 of the Planning Act and Policy  
D2.3.1 of the Town’s OP, both relating to various aspects of public works and road  
19] The other Parties objected to this request, stating that no formal Motion has  
been brought forward, no evidence relating to these issues has been submitted,  
and HWRG has been silent regarding the Procedural Order (“PO”) since its July  
3, 2021, issuance.  
20] The Tribunal notes that paragraph 5 of the PO explicitly states that there  
will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits. There does not  
appear to be any merit in adding these two additional issues to the proceeding,  
and the Tribunal notes that counsel for HWRG can cross-examine the Appellant’s  
witnesses regarding these matters.  
21] The request to add the two additional issues is denied.  
22] The Hearing of the appeal took place over the course of three days. The  
conduct of the Hearing was governed by a Procedural Order issued on July 23,  
23] At the onset of the Hearing, it was agreed that the Appellant would call  
evidence in support of the proposed settlement. It was also agreed that no other  
Parties would call evidence, unless specifically requested to do so by the Tribunal  
or as a necessary response to any issue raised by the non-settling Party, HWRG.  
24] The Town and the Appellant also agreed that the Town would call evidence  
in support of a request by the Town that the Appellant, without compensation,  
would provide six accessory apartments to be offered as affordable housing, and  
that the Appellant would offer the right of first refusal of the administration of such  
units to The Blue Mountains Attainable Housing Corporation.  
25] The Tribunal heard from 5 expert witnesses, on behalf of the Parties. The  
land use planning and engineering witnesses were qualified to provide expert  
evidence in their respective fields, as follows:  
Appellant’s Witnesses  
Kristine A. Loft - land use planning  
Alexander Fleming transportation engineering  
George Cooper civil engineering  
County’s Witness  
Scott Taylor land use planning  
HWRG Witness  
Gordon H. Russell land use planning  
26] Mr. Burton made submissions to the Tribunal, expressing his concern that  
the witness for HWRG should not be qualified, in his opinion, he was not providing  
independent expert evidence but rather acting as an advocate for HWRG. He  
made particular reference to Mr. Russell’s reliance on the Thornbury Density and  
Intensification Study Report, dated February 2022 in his evidence, which he  
admitted would be advantageous to his client.  
27] The Tribunal agrees that, in accordance with the “Clergy Principle”, the  
above-noted study, which has no status at this point, has no relevance and should  
not be relied on as a planning instrument during this Hearing.  
28] Notwithstanding Mr. Burton’s concerns, the Tribunal feels that not qualifying  
Mr. Russell as an expert witness would be prejudicial to HWRG’s case in these  
proceedings. The Tribunal qualified the witness on the condition that he makes no  
reference to the Intensification Study during his testimony.  
29] The Town called two witnesses regarding the issue of affordable housing:  
Alar Soever, Mayor of the Town and Robert Sampson, a Councillor with the Town  
and Chair of the Blue Mountain Attainable Housing Corporation.  
30] Ms. Lampert, on behalf of GCC11, stated that her client was one of the  
settling Parties and would not be taking an active role in these proceedings. Ms.  
Grace O’Brien, co-counsel for GCC11, would monitor the balance of the Hearing.  
31] As noted earlier in this Decision, the Appellant has reached a settlement  
agreement with the Town, the County and the GCC11.  
32] The HWRG have not consented to the settlement agreement and are  
calling a case which centres around the concerns of the neighbours that the  
proposed development is not compatible with the existing built form, and does not  
conform to the Town’s OP.  
33] The broader issue, and the one which was most contested, was the “last  
minute” request by the Town to add a condition requesting that the Appellant  
provide six accessory units as affordable housing units. This issue will be  
discussed separately later in this Decision.  
34] Mr. Taylor provided the Tribunal with a chronological overview of the  
background to this development starting in late 2019 when the Town and County  
received a plan of subdivision application to create 22 new residential dwellings  
(11 semi-detached lots) along with a Zoning By-Law amendment application.  
35] He stated that the five Parties to the Hearing have met to discuss issues  
and potential settlement options. The most recent proposal is a revised plan of  
subdivision to create four single detached residential dwellings and 16 semi-  
detached dwellings. HWRG put forth a revised plan of subdivision proposal to  
create 11 single detached residential dwellings and six semi detached dwellings.  
In both proposals, the new residential units would gain access from an extension  
of Bay Street West to be serviced by municipal water and sewer services.  
36] County staff brought forward an in-camera report to the County Committee  
of the Whole on March 24, 2022, seeking direction on the proposed settlement. At  
that meeting, the staff recommendation was supported by the Committee.  
37] The proposed conceptual plan of subdivision, which forms part of the  
Minutes of Settlement, is presented graphically in the figure below: