Scroll down for NEWS


South Simcoe Physio
briscofurniture.com

madhunt.com

Follow madhuntdotcom on Twitter

The Evolution of  
Advertising!

Dr. Cam

Trillium Ford

Tottenham plaza OMB appeal verdict still outstanding

Posted September 13, 2018

One year later, the Ballymore commercial plaza proposal that was appealed to the OMB by Justin Piersanti (2433263 Ontario Inc. Tottenham Mall, 55 Queen St. S and 6077315 Canada Inc Foodland Plaza, 260 Queen St. N), remains without a decision.

The hearing was held the week of Sept. 18, 2017.

Mr Piersanti's appeal is related to the Town's adoption of Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the development of a 5,600 sq m multi-building commercial plaza, including a 2,100 sq m supermarket over 5.7 acres (2.38 hectares) located at the northeast corner of Mill Street East and Hawke Crescent in Tottenham. Its anchor at the time was a proposed No Frills grocery store.

Among the 21 identified issues that were the focus of the appeal, the key one included whether "there (is) sufficient market demand to support three supermarkets in the Community of Tottenham."

Ballymore is paying the Town's OMB legal costs for this appeal.

"The Town has spoken with the caseworker and we have been told that this particular board member is behind in providing (her) written decisions," New Tecumseth's communications officer told Free Press Online this morning via email. "We have not been given a time line as to when a decision may be expected."

Below are the issues argued at the hearing.

  • Provincial Policy Statement
  • 1. Are Official Plan Amendment No. 51 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act?
  • Growth Plan
  • 2. Do Official Plan Amendment No. 51 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094 conform to and not conflict with the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?
  • Town of New Tecumseth Official Plan
  • 3. Does the commercial development proposed for the Ballymore site (Blocks 74 & 75, Plan 51 M-1038) conform to the Official Plan for the Town of New Tecumseth including the Tottenham Secondary Plan?
  • 4. Does the removal of High Density Residential designation from Block 73 of the Ballymore application conform to the Official Plan for the Town of New Tecumseth including the Tottenham Secondary Plan?
  • 5. Will the proposed commercial development and the addition of a third supermarket in Tottenham on the Ballymore site create an adverse impact on the planned function of the Community of Tottenham's Downtown Core Commercial Area and/or other existing or designated commercial sites in the Community of Tottenham?
  • 6. Do the market impact studies completed in support of the proposed Ballymore commercial development satisfy the requirements of Policy 5.5.3 of the New Tecumseth Official Plan and Policy 9.2.2.3 of the Tottenham Secondary Plan?
  • 7. Will the removal of the High Density Residential designation from Block 75 of the Ballymore subdivision have an impact on the range and mix of dwelling unit types planned to accommodate households in Tottenham?
  • 8. Is it appropriate to re-designate the High Density Residential designation on Block 75 of the Ballymore lands to Corridor Commercial given that the High Density Residential designation on Block 75 of the Ballymore lands was a condition of approval of the Ballymore plan of subdivision (Plan 51M-1038)?
  • 9. What are the appropriate size, composition and function of the proposed commercial development on the Ballymore site for serving the needs of Tottenham residents, in particular residents living in the Ballymore subdivision?
  • 10. Should consideration have been given in the Ballymore application to policies in the Town of New Tecumseth such as Downtown Enhancement Master Plan (DEMP), section 7.17 of the Official Plan for Community Investment Project Areas for Downton Tottenham Core (including by-laws 2005-40 and 2005-137), and Beeton/Tottenham Business Improvement Area (By-law 2011-051 under s. 217 of the Municipal Act)?
  • 11. Is the Ballymore application for Official Plan Amendment No. 51 premature?
  • Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094
  • 12. Does Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094 provide for the appropriate development of the Ballymore site?
  • Market Impact Studies
  • 13. Were the market demand and impact studies completed in support of the Ballymore commercial application by Altus, IBI Group and Tate Economic Research accurate with respect to their methodology and correct in their conclusions?
  • 14. Were the Trade Areas defined by Ballymore's three market consultants realistic in recognizing the scale of the Ballymore commercial proposal and its anchor supermarket tenant (No Frills)?
  • 15. Should the existing Walmart Supercentre with its 35,000 square foot food component (with its approved area increasing to 5,205 sq. m. or 56,000 sq. ft.) as well as the existing approved 5,205 sq. m. or 56,000 sq. ft. proposed Metro supermarket in east Alliston Secondary Plan, Amendment No. 29 have been recognized in the the Trade Area chosen for the No Frills supermarket proposed for the Ballymore site?
  • 16.Given the Tottenham Mall redevelopment including the new Vince's supermarket of 18,000 square feet, is it appropriate from a market impact and planning perspective to approve the proposed Ballymore commercial development?
  • 17. Is there sufficient market demand to support three supermarkets in the Community of Tottenham?
  • 18.Given the Applicant's market research has set out trade areas that include east Alliston Secondary Plan Amendment No. 29, was consideration given and is there market demand or justification to support the Applicant's supermarket to be a fifth (5th) supermarket in the Trade Area chosen for the No Frills supermarket proposed for the Ballymore site ?
  • 19. Should the Council of the Town of New Tecumseth have considered the conclusions and recommendations of the peer review completed by Kircher Research Associates in making its decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 51 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094?
  • 20. Should any of the market studies completed in support of the proposed Ballymore commercial development have given consideration to the impact of the proposed No Frills supermarket on the Foodland supermarket in Beeton?
  • 21.Should the IBI Group's updated 2016 market impact study have been peerreviewed prior to the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 51 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2016-094?

Click here to report typos/errors or send Letter to the Editor.


All stories, unless otherwise noted,
by Tony Veltri

Web
Analytics