October 4

2022
The Lambton Shores
Community Association
submission to the Ontario
Land Tribunal (OLT)

The Lambton Shores Community Association is an Incorporated

Community Association that has been active in the municipality and
the Village of Grand Bend since 2010. This document contains our
arguments that demonstrate that the proposed condominium
OLT-22-
development at 17 Pine St at the Grand Bend beach is inappropriate, 002903
does not align with the Provincial Policy Statement, and is detrimental
to the community we represent.
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

Introduction
This document has been prepared by the Lambton Shores Community Association (LSCA) with a view to
helping the Ontario Land Tribunal understand the aims, context and potential negative impact of this
proposed development.

In this document we demonstrate that the proposed construction is inappropriate for the site and does
not align with published provincial and municipal planning policies.

In particular, our analysis of the proposed development, assessed against the Provincial Policy
Statement (APPENDIX A - Planning Policy Analysis) concurs with the many opinions voiced by
community members, and the stated view of the Municipal Planner, that the proposed development is
inappropriate for the site.

The Appellant will argue via his Planner, that the proposed condominiums are a transition between the
condominium complex to the south and the cottage to the north. The following photograph shows this
is not the case because the land to the south is an open car park with trees.

Grand Bend already has numerous ongoing large-scale developments providing significantly more
housing on its eastern edge. Hence this damaging custom zone change request cannot be justified in
terms of mitigating benefits. We provide further photographs in Appendix D which the tribunal may
find helpful in providing visual context of the site.

1|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

Background (for context)

The subject property at 17 Pine Street is on the main beach at Grand Bend, beside a pedestrian walkway
to the beach and beside single-family cottages all along the beach extending to Oakwood, a private
community north of Grand Bend. It is directly across the road from several smaller cottages along a very
narrow street and is situated high on the original sand dune. The roads are narrow and many people
bike and walk in the area since the walkway is a primary public access to the main beach, one of three in
the old Plan 24 section of Grand Bend. The area is used heavily by everyone, as a way to the Rotary
Pavilion for music, to walk their dogs, to bike, to go to the Main Beach, or to walk to the dock and
downtown via the boardwalk.

Prior to applying to the Municipality, the Appellant approached local residents with his professional
planner to garner support, saying he was building a family residence. In reality the Appellant is
attempting to replace a single residence with three condominiums that his family members can classify
as individual primary residences and sell without paying capital gains tax. We feel this point is very
relevant because from the beginning, the Appellant has attempted to justify the development to the
community as the “Ford Family Residence”. The Municipality did not take part in this unconventional
and biased exercise, which proved unsuccessful in winning over the community. When the Appellant
formally applied to the Municipality requesting the zoning changes to permit condominiums, neighbors
were notified about his intentions and there was a huge public outcry, with over 40 letters of objection
sent in for the first Municipality Council Meeting (Dec. 21, 2021).

Far fewer letters in favor of the re-zoning were received. After a LSCA investigation (See Appendix C ),
that correspondence proved to be almost exclusively submitted by people who were connected to MFL
Properties the owner of 17 Pine St. MFL Properties’ is an acronym for McGillivray, Ford and Legault, the
surnames of Mr. Fords’ mother and sister. These were primarily family members and business
associates involved in a wide range of property development and private lending/investment schemes in
Grand Bend. In addition, two persons closely involved in the project, spoke in favor by zoom to counter
community concerns but did not declare their involvement in the project (partners of two MFL
Properties owners). Also, LSCA found the Justification Report submitted by Monteith Brown Planning
(Appendix B also Page 149 -150 OLT-22-002903 - Municipal Record) to be inaccurate and misleading and
heavily biased in favor of the development.

The Appellant has requested a custom rezoning designation for the site and our community strongly
believes the North Beach along the lake towards Oakwood must be protected from inappropriate
development that will negatively impact one of Grand Bend’s major assets. It would also set a precedent
for similar massive and overbearing developments along the beach and elsewhere. We concur with the
Municipality that the zoning designation for this site must remain R4 with its development restrictions,
which were established through public consultation. Several of our members have spoken to this effect
at the two Council Meetings at which the application was refused.

2|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

Issues

The proposal does not align with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (See analysis provided in
Appendix A). The insignificant additional accommodation that would be provided in no way
balances the negative impact on the Grand Bend public beach and its environs.

The proposal does not comply with Municipal Master Zoning Bylaw and hence does not align
with the Municipality of Lambton Shores Official Plan, specifically with respect to height and lot
coverage restrictions.

The Justification Report submitted by Monteith Brown Planning contains inaccuracies and errors
(See Appendix B - also Page 149 -150 OLT-22-002903 - Municipal Record). This is perhaps to be
expected from a solicited document which is by nature inherently biased in favour of the
Appellant and produced for the purposes of advocating the zone change.

The scale and density of the proposed development (which would be permitted by the Zone
change) is inappropriate for its location next to a public walkway and public beach. Rooftop
terraces are inappropriate (not expressly permitted by the Master Bylaw and therefore
prohibited) in a residential zone with properties in close proximity and especially overlooking a
public beach. Granting of the special zoning requested for the site would introduce roof terraces
into what is currently the area zoned R4 and indeed into the R3 designation.

The site is not special or unique in any way that makes it more suitable for condominiums. In
fact the building lot is shorter than the neighbouring lots to the north. Thus the proposed
condominiums would set a precedent for inappropriate development on a public beach that
would detract from the main tourist attraction at the heart of Grand Bend.

The proposed development is opposed by the vast majority of the community who support the
Municipality's approach of permitting and encouraging construction of new homes in Grand
Bend in appropriate locations only. Grand Bend already has numerous ongoing large-scale
developments providing significantly more housing on its western edge. Hence this damaging
zone change request cannot be justified in terms of mitigating benefits.

The construction of condominiums is not necessary for the Ford Family to co-locate. According
to letters submitted to the initial Council hearing, Kyle Ford‘s partner Chelsea is the stated
owner of 18 Pine Street opposite and his mother (one of the three family owners of MFL
Properties) is the stated owner of 16 Pine Street opposite.

3|Page
L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

4|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

Conclusions

Based on the analysis provided in Appendix A, Planning Policy Analysis, the proposed Zoning By-Law
change, to permit construction of three vertically stacked condominium dwellings in place of a single
family residence, is INCONSISTENT with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement.

With reference to the Planning Policy Statement, there are no significant long-term benefits associated
with the proposal (for example in terms of improved transportation, increased employment or
affordable housing), that would in any way offset the negative impact this proposal would have on the
community and the precedent that would be set in terms of undermining local planning policies.

The Appellant is a developer seeking to build three stacked condominiums at a lakefront site that is
currently limited by the Zoning Bylaw to a single ownership residence. The site is one of a row of
properties similarly classified Zone R4 along the public beach. The Appellant seeks a reclassification of
the site to Zone R3, further modified to permit greater height and lot coverage. The site will also require
legal subdivision to permit multiple title ownership, which it appears the Appellant will seek as a further
step in a plan to create three sellable properties on the lot. The Appellant has therefore not maintained
the intent and purpose of the Municipality of Lambton Shores Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 2003 which zones
the site in a manner that prohibits the proposed triplex condominiums, because the scale and
occupancy of such is inappropriate for the site.

This analysis concurs with the many opinions voiced by community members, and the stated view of the
Municipality Planner, that the proposed development is inappropriate.

Our members have been pro-active and realistic.

We wish to state we are NOT against development. We are only against inappropriate development
which we believe would have a net negative impact on the community as a whole.

The Lambton Shores Community Association is asking the Ontario Land Tribunal to not grant this appeal
against the Municipality of Lambton Shores.

5|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

APPENDIX A - Planning Policy Analysis

2020 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT

The following analysis demonstrates that the proposal to create a custom zoning designation to allow
replacement of a single-family lakefront cottage with three stacked condominiums is not in keeping with
the spirit or intent of the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement.

APPLICABLE POLICY RESPONSE

1.1.1 a)
Sustain the financial well-being of the The primary asset that the Municipality has in
Province and Municipalities over the long Grand Bend is the lakefront and public beach.
term This is what attracts people to visit and reside in
Grand Bend. Permitting condominiums on the
lakefront which significantly exceeds the R4
height restriction will detract from the visitor
experience. This decision is about setting
lakefront development policy as it would set a
community damaging precedent.
1.1.1 b) The proposed development by exceeding
accommodating….recreation, park and established lot coverage limits will reduce the
open space feeling of space at the lakefront and the adjacent
public access path.
1.1.1 c)
avoiding development and land use The site is adjacent to a busy public beach access
patterns which may cause environmental, path located on a roadway corner. The proposals
public health and safety concerns will increase vehicular traffic and require vehicles
to reverse out next to the public footpath. The site
is inappropriate for densification and will
negatively impact public safety.
1.1.1 h)
Promoting development and land use The applicant seeks to benefit in terms of extent
patterns that support biodiversity of development from owning a piece of land
classed as Lakeshore. This land has until recently
supported dune grasses and associated
biodiversity which have been largely removed.
The developer has a reputation for cutting down
trees at every development and “maximizing” use
of the land owned. “Maximizing” the
development on this site is inappropriate when
opportunities for creating many new homes in
Grand Bend are being supported by the
Municipality already.

6|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S
1.1.3
Development pressures and land use change will
vary across Ontario. It is in the interest of all
communities to use land and resources wisely, to
promote effective development patterns, protect
resources, promote green spaces
1.1.3.4
Appropriate development standards should be
promoted which facilitate intensification,
redevelopment and compact form, while
avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and
safety.
1.1.3.5
Planning authorities shall establish and
implement minimum targets for intensification
and development within built-up areas, based on
local conditions
1.1.4
It is important to leverage rural assets and
amenities and protect the environment as a
foundation for a sustainable economy.
a) Building upon rural character, and
leveraging rural amenities and assets
C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N
The lakefront and public beach environment is a
key resource of the community, the attractiveness
of which will be negatively impacted by over
development and the “concrete jungle” effect.
Increased lot coverage at the expense of open
space around buildings is highly inappropriate in
this location.
The proposed building measuring 11m from the
first floor will create an oppressive barrier
immediately adjacent to the public footpath
which will negatively impact the positive mental
health benefits of being in the area. As previously
noted, it will also create safety issues at a point
where the public enter and leave the beach via
the footpath. The Municipality has established
appropriate development standards which this
proposed development does not meet.
The Municipality is facilitating a rapid expansion
of homes in Grand Bend in accordance with a well
thought out planning policy. That policy seeks to
preserve the character, attractiveness and
ambience of the public beach area for the
community as a whole and visitors. The proposed
development is contrary to this holistic and
inclusive approach to development of Grand
Bend.
Overdevelopment of the lakefront and the
properties along the public beach would be
“killing the goose that laid the golden egg”. The
open feel of the lakefront area should be
maintained as a public asset. New more
affordable homes (currently 100+) are being built
and are available elsewhere in Grand Bend in
walking distance of the beach.
7|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S
1.1.4.3
Planning authorities shall give consideration to
rural characteristics, the scale of development
1.1.5.3
Recreational, tourism and other economic
opportunities shall be promoted.
1.1.5.5
Avoid the need for the unjustified and/or
economic expansion of the infrastructure.
1.2.1
A coordinated , integrated and comprehensive
approach should be used when dealing with
planning matters within municipalities
e) ecosystem, shoreline, watershed and Great
Lakes related issues.
1.2.6 Land Use Compatibility
Minimize risk to public health and safety
1.4.3
Affordable to low and moderate income
households
C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N
The Municipality has carefully considered this
proposal, and with substantial community
support, has decided that the proposal is an
inappropriate scale of development for this
special lakefront site.
Recreational and tourism opportunities are being
promoted by preserving and enhancing the
attractiveness of the beach and the main street
commercial facilities. Major projects are
underway. The proposal would constitute a
negative impact on the beach and would set a
precedent to triple the number of homes
overlooking the beach and to turn the view from
a beach approach from the village into a wall of
buildings atop a sea of garage doors.
Expansion of the residential infrastructure on the
lakefront (tripling the number of homeowners) is
unjustified. Approving this proposal would set this
precedent. There is nothing special about this site.
The lot available for development is actually
smaller than the other lots in the lakefront row to
the north.
This proposal is in conflict with the coordinated,
integrated and comprehensive approach to the
Lake Huron shoreline developed by the
Municipality and supported by its communities.
Increased vehicular traffic due to 3x densification
along the lakefront where there are numerous
narrow public footpath access points between
properties unnecessarily increases risk to public
safety.
The proposed exclusive condominiums will not
contribute to the stock of homes available to low
and moderate income households. It is therefore
appropriate to permit intensification elsewhere in
the community which will not have a negative
impact on the public beach area and pedestrian
access routes.
8|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S
1.4.3 f)
Residential intensification, redevelopment and
new residential development which minimize the
cost of housing and facilitate compact for, while
maintaining appropriate levels of public safety.
1.5.1 Planning public streets, spaces and facilities
to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, foster
social interaction
1.5.1 b)
Equitable distribution of publicly accessible built
and natural settings for recreation, including…
water-based resources
1.5.1 C)
Providing opportunities for public access to
shorelines
1.5.1 d)
Recognizing provincial parks, conservation areas,
and other protected areas, and minimising
negative impacts on these areas.
1.6.2
Planning authorities should promote green
infrastructure to complement infrastructure.
1.6.6.7
e) maximise the extent and function of vegetative
and pervious surfaces
C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N
This proposed development to replace a single
home with 3 luxury homes will benefit the
developer at the expense of the community with
decreased public safety associated with increased
vehicular manoeuvring around pedestrian public
access points.
Permitting condominiums on the lakefront will
have the following negative impacts on
pedestrians and beachgoers:
- Increased vehicular traffic
- Oppressive 11m plus walls adjacent to
footpaths
- People on the beach overlooked by
observers on high level roof patios and
balconies
The proposed development creates opportunities
for the few (motivated initially by financial gain)
at the expense of the environment enjoyed by the
many (the public).
This development will negatively impact public
access to the shoreline through the walkways
between properties.
The overdevelopment of the site, and associated
reliance on the protected Lakeshore portion of the
lot for social use, will have a negative impact on a
protected area (Lakeshore designation).
Setting a precedent for increased lot coverage
and shadow will limit and negatively impact on
an area immediately adjacent to a public
recreation area. Increased hard landscaping at
the expense of cultivated areas is in conflict with
this policy.
Increased lot coverage with increased hard
landscaping and diminished soft landscaping is
contrary to this policy and is particularly
undesirable adjacent to the public beach.
9|Page
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S
1.7.1 h)
Providing opportunities for sustained tourism
development.
1.8.1 g)
Maximise vegetation
2.0
Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental
health, and social well-being depend on
conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of
the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage,
water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage
and archeological resources for their economic,
environmental and social benefits.
2.1.1
Natural features shall be protected for the long
term.
2.2.2
Development and site alteration shall be
restricted in or near sensitive surface water
features and sensitive ground water features
such that these features and their related
hydrologic functions will be protected, improved
or restored.
4.4 This Policy Statement shall be implemented in
a manner that is consistent with Ontario Human
Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N
e Municipality has developed balanced policies
that facilitate the appropriate (and indeed
substantial) residential and commercial
development currently ongoing in Grand Bend
without having unnecessary negative impact on
the features that attract tourists. This proposal is
not in keeping with those policies and would set a
highly undesirable precedent that would
undermine the Municipality’s long-term planning
objectives.
The Municipality has maximised vegetation on
public property which includes constructing
planters and tree planting along the main street
popular with tourists. This is in keeping with the
stated policy. The proposed development seeks to
increase lot coverage which is not in keeping with
this policy. In addition, the developer always
removes trees from properties to reduce yard
maintenance.
The proposed development involves - occupation
intensification, increased building height and
mass, increased lot coverage and the social
intrusion of rooftop patios. The proposals will
have negative social impacts and will set a
precedent which will have significant negative
environmental repercussions.
The public beach is a natural feature which must
be protected and this includes the built
environment vista from the beach. The proposal is
in conflict with the policy.
To comply with this policy, development on this
sensitive lakeshore site should be minimized not
increased.
The rights of the community in terms of living in
an enduring built environment that is conducive
with their mental and physical wellbeing must be
weighed against the right of a developer to
exploit the planning system for short-term
financial gain. The public rely on and trust its
governing bodies to serve the public good.
10 | P a g e
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

APPENDIX B

Comments on Monteith Brown Planning Justification Report

(Page 149 -150 OLT-22-002903 - Municipal Record)

Item Reference Objection or comment

1.1.Paragraph 2 We understand this to be a re-zoning (and presumably later a sub-
division) application which is speculative and being undertaken by a
Developer with numerous ongoing projects in Grand Bend.
Comments on family use are irrelevant to the re-zoning application
and should not be given any weight.
1.2 Paragraph 3 Privately initiated consultation is biased and not valid. Proposal has
received overwhelming negative feedback. Letters of support are
tainted.
1.2 Paragraph 4 The purpose of the report is not “to determine the appropriateness
of the proposed development” but to further the Applicant’s case
for re-zoning.
1.3 Paragraph 2 The subject lands are not a transition point in terms of building
height. The land immediately to the south of the subject R4 zoned
land is a large car park equivalent to several empty lots. The
property to the north is a two storey property befitting the Zone R4
designation.
1.4 Generally The pre-application consultation is not impartial and its findings
should be ignored in favour of the results of the official Municipality
public consultation which is overwhelmingly opposed to the re-
zoning application.
1.4 Paragraph 3 We note that the current height limit for a building in R4 which
currently applies to the lot is 7.4m for a building of the form
proposed by Skinner Architects. The Appellant is requesting 11m
which is excessive.
2.0 Paragraph 1 The development proposal is not relevant to the re-zoning
application. The Applicant is free to redesign a new building or
modify the current conceptual submission in order to maximize the
development potential of any re-zoning. We note that it is possible
to design a 4-storey above grade flat roofed building within a 36 feet
height limit.
2.0 Paragraph 1 We note that the Municipality current method of restricting height
does not relate the building height to ground levels or to the level of
neighbouring properties roofs). No weight can therefore be placed
on the accuracy of any submitted elevations or views intended to
show maximum height.

11 | P a g e
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

2.0 Paragraph 3 The vehicle turnaround area is not big enough to allow typical sized
vehicles to turn around when especially when there are vehicles in
the parking bays which is likely with 3 residences and 13 or more
bedrooms
2.0 Paragraph 6 Although at the re-zoning application stage the current building
design is largely irrelevant it must be noted that an “amenity area”
on a roof is not permitted by the By-law.
We note those statements related to guardrail height do not meet
the Ontario Building Code.
2.0 Paragraph 7 We do not agree with the staff interpretation of “scenery lofts”
which has no relation to a dictionary definition. Whether roof
terraces are described as “scenery Lofts” or not they are not
expressly permitted in the By-law and are therefore expressly
prohibited according to the By-law. We therefore do not accept that
the building as proposed meets the By-law for Zone R4 or Zone R3.
This is presumably why the Developer requested the R3 zone be
modified to create a new R3 Zone that permits roof terraces.
Paragraph 5 page 33 We note that site specific provisions will be required including
flexibility in building height and for height of handrails for the
“rooftop amenity area”. Again, guardrail height not to code.
Paragraph 6 page 33 We not that at the Skinner Architects development at 26 Huron
street the “flexibility in the construction process” has created a
building up to 5 feet above ground level not the 8”(200mm) stated
here.
Paragraph 2 Page 34 Roof terraces/roof patios are not permitted by the By-law.
Last para page 34 What is the Planning Report referred to (no reference provided for
checking).
6.1 We note a triplex dwelling differs from a three storey condominium
building as a triplex is single ownership title whereas condominiums
are multiple ownership title and the development would require a
further sub-division application to re-title the site thus.
Table 1 page 39 Last item last row should include A site plan Agreement
Table 1 page 39 We object to proposed R3-# Zone attempting to introduce “rooftop
amenity area” into the By-law without specific public consultation.
7. Conclusion It is not for the Developer’s agent to certify whether the proposed
Zoning By-law amendment “is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement” etc.
Appendix 1 This process was not impartial its output and conclusions should be
Private Consultation ignored in considering this application.
Letters of support Not impartial (mostly applicants own properties and colleagues).

12 | P a g e
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

APPENDIX C - Association Investigation of Letters of Support

TABLE LINKING LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO MFL (MCGILLIVRAY/ FORD / LEGAULT) ASSOCIATES AND SHORT TERM RENTALS
Address Rental Name / Support Relationship Bedrooms/ Bathrooms Guests/ Min Stay
Use Letter to MFL (beds) Sleeps
Name
17 Pine St “Beachfront” Subject Lot MFL is 3 (5) 1 14 3 Nights
Developer
18 Pine St “Hard Knox Life” Chelsea Kyle Ford’s 3 8 3 nights
Middleton partner (3+pullout)
* (declared
owner)
16 Pine “Scoots Shack” Doreen Kyle Ford’s 3 2 10 3 nights
Street McGillivray mother (4 +2 sofabeds)
(declared (Kitchener
owner) based)
25 & 27 ”After Dune Steve (& Mortgage 5 3 14 3 nights
Warwick Delight”+ 1 of Ruth) Aho Alliance Team
below
? Warwick “Lost Lobster” N/A 3 (4+sofabed) 1.5 10 3 nights
? Warwick “Lazy Bear” N/A 3 (4+sofabed) 2 10 3 nights
5 Shady “Lolas Tarah (&TJ) Chelsea 3 (5) 1.5 10 Air B&B
Lane Lakehouse” Sauder Middleton’s
(declared sister
owners)
24 Huron St “Huron Terri Kyle Ford’s 3 (Current 2.5 10 3 nights
(declared Hideaway” Legault sister winter
avenue) (declared /Mortgage residence KF &
owner) Alliance Team CM)
11 Eiber St New Build (CM’s Wes Mortgage
name on MacDonald Alliance Team
statutory notice) (declared
owner)
49 Gill Rd Legault Michael Terri Legault’s
residence Allison” partner /
(declared property
owner) maintenance
13 Huron Short term Shaun Casey’s Lawn
Avenue rental (duplex) Gunness Care (& snow
last sold 18 Feb service)
2021
26 Huron New Build (CM’s N/A
Street name on

13 | P a g e
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

statutory notice)
10/12 Application to N/A
Warwick sever lot (CM’s
Avenue name on notice)

“Chelsea Middleton and Michael Allison spoke in support at the Council Meeting on 21 st Dec

Short term rental business is Simply Paradise /Simplyparadisefr.com (Middleton et al)

Mortgage Alliance (Kyle Ford, Terri Legault, Wes MacDonald, Steve Aho) out of Kitchener.

Shamrock Property Management (Terri Legault, Michael Allison), Grand Bend area

14 | P a g e
 L A M B TO N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

17 Pine St. at the bottom of short steep hill 17 Pine St. - line of trees denotes far side of public walkway

Walkway from public beach uphill to Pine St.

15 | P a g e