D. Gregory Meeds

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for a 495-unit residential development.

On consent, the Tribunal granted party status to three entities.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

At a Case Management Conference, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry brought a motion under s. 17(39)(b) of the Planning Act to bring into force and effect undisputed land use designations in its Comprehensive Official Plan across five townships.

The motion followed extensive discussions resolving appeals regarding the designation of lands as Agricultural Resource Lands versus Rural District.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised mapping was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the undisputed schedules into force.

The Tribunal also granted a motion for directions clarifying that an appellant's appeal sought an aggregate reserve designation rather than an agricultural one.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry 2018 Comprehensive Official Plan, the Township of South Glengarry brought a motion to bring into force parts of the Official Plan redesignating two properties from 'Agricultural Resource Lands' to 'Rural District'.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the redesignation was appropriate based on soil characteristics and conformed with the intent of the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address the remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a food distribution warehouse on rural lands partially within a floodplain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding natural heritage, traffic safety, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Study or hydrogeological study.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was not within or adjacent to natural heritage features requiring an EIS, and that the site's location near a highway interchange was appropriate for transport-related uses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the official plan.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.