Tottenham plaza OMB appeal verdict still outstanding
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
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.
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?
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
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 220.127.116.11 of the Tottenham
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
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?
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?
Amendment No. 2016-094
12. Does Zoning
By-law Amendment No. 2016-094 provide for the appropriate development
of the Ballymore site?
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
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?
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
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?