Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210260
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Charles Sytsma
Applicant: Timothy Aubin et al
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 200 Eighth Line Road
Municipality: Township of Athens
Municipal File No.: B-149-20
OLT Case No.: PL210260
OLT File No.: PL210260
OLT Case Name: Sytsma v United Counties of Leeds and Grenville (County)
Heard: September 28, 2021 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Charles Sytsma (the “Appellant”) Representative Self-represented
Parties Timothy Aubin et al (the “Applicants”) Representative Self-represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On March 31, 2021, the Leeds and Grenville Consent Granting Authority (the “Committee”) granted the Applicants’ Consent to sever their lands located at 200 Eighth Line Road in the Township of Athens (the “Township”).
2The proposal involves the severance of a 0.4 hectare (1 acre) parcel of land (the “lot”) from an existing rural lot which is approximately 15.3 hectares (38 acres) in size, leaving a remaining parcel of approximately 37 acres in size (the “retained lands”). The entire subject lands are located on the northeast corner of Eighth Line Road and Osborne Road. The lot would have frontage on Osborne Road only, and be adjacent to a cluster of other similarly sized rural residential lots. The retained lands would have frontage on both Osbourn Road and Eighth Line, and include the northeast corner of same.
3The proposed lot is vacant while the retained lands would contain four original outbuildings. Both the lot and retained lands are proposed to be used for rural residential use.
4The Appellant opposes the Consent upon the following claims:
That the proposed Consent contravenes provincially determined Minimum Distance Separations (“MDS”) formulae associated with area livestock operations;
That the proposed severance is simply not permitted because it involves agricultural lands in an agricultural area; and
That the Applicants did not follow the requisite procedures to be originally granted the Consent by the Committee. This includes claims by the Appellant that the Applicants filled out forms incorrectly and failed to properly post notice of the application.
5For reasons provided in greater detail below, the Tribunal allows the appeal and denies the Consent on account of the Applicants providing insufficient information to the Tribunal to properly assess the first issue listed above regarding MDS standards. The onus is on the Applicants to satisfy the Tribunal that the proposed Consent satisfies the relevant statutory requirements, and they have failed to do so. The Tribunal arrives at this finding despite finding against the Appellant with respect to the second claim listed above.
6Upon this decision to allow the appeal, the Tribunal finds no reason to consider the third claim raised by the Appellant.
Parties and preliminary issues
7At the hearing, the parties were all self-represented. The Municipality declined to participate.
8At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed that they did not have a copy of the Municipal Record pertaining to the matter, and that they wished to have a copy to rely on as part of their case. The Applicants indicated that they had no other evidence to rely on, and the Appellant indicated that the Municipality had denied his requests to obtain a copy of the Municipal Record. On consent of all parties, and pursuant to s. 12 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, the Tribunal provided a copy and adjourned the hearing for two-hours to provide the parties with time to review and further time to prepare.
9When the matter was reconvened, the parties confirmed that they had time to review the Municipal Record and that they were prepared to continue. The Applicants also confirmed that they had no additional evidence to provide, beyond the Municipal Record (which was marked as an exhibit), while the Appellant provided some additional documentary evidence (which was also marked as an exhibit).
10One document that the Appellant proposed to submit as evidence, referred to as “Appendix E”, was not in the Tribunal file and the Applicants confirmed that they had not seen it prior to the hearing. The Applicants objected to its submission on these grounds. The Appellant subsequently withdrew the proposed exhibit, relying instead on similar evidence contained in the Municipal Record.
11Both parties supplemented the marked documentary evidence with oral testimony to provide context to the matter. The Appellant testified and made submissions on his own behalf, while the Applicants each took turns providing oral evidence and submissions.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
The Subject Lands and Surrounding Context
12This case pertains to the Applicants’ proposal to sever a 1-acre lot off a 38-acre parcel, effectively creating two parcels of approximately 1 and 37 acres each respectively. The Applicants also testified that they have another Consent application pending for another severance involving the 37-acre retained lands. The Applicants further testified that it is their intention to build a home on the retained lands, and the other two severed lots would also be used for residential purposes. In total, therefore, the Applicants’ plan is to create three residential lots from the original 38-acre parcel.
13The uncontested evidence of the parties, supported by the Municipal Record, shows that the proposed lot of the current Consent application would have the effect of creating a residential lot among and adjacent to a cluster of between 7 and 10 similarly sized residential lots along both sides of Osbourn Road. The parties confirmed that there are at least 7 existing residential lots in this cluster, while the aerial images appear to show 10. Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that the number of existing residential lots within this cluster is in fact 10.
14The parties confirmed that the Appellant has historically farmed the subject lands, including the Applicants’ land after the Applicants bought it in November of 2019.
15The Appellant’s uncontested evidence is that he is a livestock farmer who owns or rents a number of farms in the area, including two of the three closest livestock facilities (barns) located in the vicinity of the subject property. The three properties with the closest livestock facilities were referred to by the parties as “Farm 3”, “Farm 4”, and “Farm 5”
MDS Calculations and Farm 3, Farm 4, and Farm 5
16The uncontested evidence of the parties is that Farm 3, with a municipal address of 223 Eighth Line Road and occupied (rented) by the Appellant, is located immediately southeast of the totality of the subject lands. The Applicants estimated that a livestock facility (barn) on Farm 3 is located approximately 400 metres (“m”) from the proposed lot. The Appellant did not contest this measurement. While none of the parties provided any measurements between the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 3, aerial images provided to the Tribunal show that the retained lands share a common corner immediately across Eighth Line Road, to the east. It is apparent, therefore, that the distance between the southeastern edge of the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 3 is very close, although impossible for the Tribunal to determine conclusively based on the limited information provided.
17The uncontested evidence of the parties is that Farm 4, with a municipal address of 205 Eighth Line Road and not occupied by the Appellant, is located immediately south of the totality of the subject lands. The Applicants estimated that a livestock facility (barn) on Farm 4 is located approximately 460 m from the proposed lot. The Appellant did not contest this measurement. Again, while none of the parties provided any measurements between the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 4, aerial images provided to the Tribunal show the retained lands being directly across Eighth Line Road. It is again apparent, therefore, that the distance between the southern edge of the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 4 is very close, although impossible for the Tribunal to determine conclusively based on the limited information provided.
18The uncontested evidence of the parties is that Farm 5, with a municipal address of 189 Eighth Line Road, is owned and occupied by the Appellant, and is located immediately southwest of the totality of the subject lands. The Applicants estimated that a livestock facility (barn) on Farm 5 is located 750 m from the proposed lot. The Appellant did not contest this measurement. Once again, while none of the parties provided any measurements between the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 5, aerial images provided to the Tribunal show the retained lands being very close to sharing a common corner immediately across Eighth Line Road, to the west. It is once again apparent, therefore, that the distance between the southwestern edge of the proposed retained lands and the livestock facility on Farm 5 is very close, although impossible for the Tribunal to determine conclusively based on the limited information provided.
19Farm 3, Farm 4, and Farm 5 were referenced by both parties as including the closest livestock facilities to the proposed lot and therefore, they all submitted, featured the most relevant measures regarding conformity with provincial MDS standards.
20The Appellant submitted an Ontario government publication titled “The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document” (“MDS Guidelines”), which was marked as an exhibit. This document purports to provide the “Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks” for the Province as it relates to development in agricultural areas. There was no contest between the parties with respect to the purpose or applicability of the document, and the Applicants confirmed that they used the document to prepare calculations associated with MDS compliance in relation to their original Consent application before the Committee. They testified that they used the calculations and standards for “MDS I” contained in the guidelines. There was no contest from the Appellant that these were the correct standards to apply. These calculations also formed part of the Municipal Record, which made it part of the record before the Tribunal.
21The following MDS calculations were submitted by the Applicants in relation to the livestock facilities located at the subject neighbouring farms (actual distance estimates, as described above, are in brackets):
Farm 3: MDS = 429 m (actual distance to lot = ~750 m)
Farm 4: MDS = 430 m (actual distance to lot = ~460 m)
Farm 5: MDS = 339 m (actual distance to lot = ~400 m)
22The parties all agreed and submitted that the MDS measurements are a product of measuring the size of the respective livestock facility (i.e. barn square footage), determining the particular livestock located therein, if any, formulating a number of livestock “units” based on these factors, which ultimately determines the applicable MDS measurements to apply to the given facility.
23It is noteworthy that the Tribunal was provided with practically no assistance to satisfy it with respect to the reliability of any of these calculations. There was no expert witness provided to testify to confirm the correct formulae was used, the calculations were done correctly, or even whether the estimated distances from the proposed lot were accurate. The Applicants testified that they used online resources to perform the relevant measurements, and they did not confirm the presence of or the type of livestock in the Appellant’s barns. The Tribunal accordingly finds the Applicants’ methodology concerning and their calculations respecting the lot are unreliable, to an extent that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicants have met their onus to prove the proposed lot is compliant with MDS standards.
24Despite this finding, it is noteworthy that the Appellant did not contest the Applicants’ MDS calculations. However, he did present one notable caveat by drawing the Tribunal’s attention to “Implementation Guideline #43: Type B Land Uses (More Sensitive)” of the MDS Guidelines:
For the purposes of MDS I, proposed Type B land uses are characterized by a higher density of human occupancy, habitation or activity including, but not limited to:
the creation of one or more lots for development on land outside a settlement area, that results in four or more lots for development, which are in immediate proximity to one another (e.g., sharing a common contiguous boundary, across the road from one another, etc.)…
25The Appellant submitted that, given the Applicants’ proposed lot would be within close proximity to at least 7 other residential lots (which the Tribunal ultimately found to be 10), the stricter application of “Type B land uses” MDS standards should apply. The Applicants provided no response to this submission.
26The Tribunal is persuaded that the stricter standard of Type B land uses applies, being twice that which the Applicants provided, meaning that, even if the Applicants’ calculations are accurate, the actual MDS is twice what they submitted and the proposed lot is clearly out of compliance with MDS standards in relation to all three livestock facilities, and possibly others.
27In addition to the above, the Appellant drew the Tribunal’s attention to “Implementation Guideline #8. MDS I Setbacks for Lot Creation”, which states:
Where lot creation is proposed, […] an MDS I setback is required for both the severed and retained lot. (emphasis added)
28It was an uncontested fact that the retained lands are literally across the road from Farm 3, Farm 4 and Farm 5, and so the retained lands are clearly much closer than the lot to Farm 3, Farm 4 and Farm 5, and very close to the livestock facilities on those farms from an MDS standpoint. The Applicants provided no response with respect to this submission.
29As pointed out previously in this decision, no one provided any measurements or MDS calculations associated with the retained lands. The onus to do so was, again, on the Applicants.
30The Tribunal therefore finds, even if the Applicants’ calculations are correct, and even if the proposed Consent does not involve the stricter MDS standards of “Type B Land Uses”, the Applicants have failed to provide the Tribunal with sufficient information to consider MDS issues in relation to the retained lands.
31Furthermore, while the Tribunal does not have sufficient information to conclusively determine the distances between the retained lands and the area’s livestock facilities, the evidence before it is sufficiently conclusive that the retained lands are much closer than the proposed lot and are in fact, literally across the road from Farm 3, Farm 4 and Farm 5. This leads the Tribunal to a finding whereby there is enough of a probability of an issue with MDS standards to require the Applicants to provide more information before the Tribunal can be satisfied in this respect.
32Relatedly, the Tribunal finds that reliable information associated with the applicable MDS calculations and distances between the retained lands and the livestock facilities located on Farm 3, Farm 4 and Farm 5 are critically important to enable the Tribunal to perform the statutorily prescribed analyses, which are covered in greater detail further below.
Are the Subject Lands within a Prime Agricultural or Rural Area?
33From the outset, the parties where in dispute regarding the designation of the subject lands. The Appellant took the position that the lands qualify as “prime agricultural land” and within a “prime agricultural area”, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), and therefore not subject to potential severances. In support of his position, the Appellant submitted that the “soil class” of the lands is the determining factor to consider, and claimed that the subject lands are “Class 3”, but he did not provide anything to support his position or evidence with regards to the actual soil class of the subject lands. The Appellant also took the position that the cluster of residential lots adjacent to the proposed lot constitute a “settlement area” as defined by the PPS (although the relevancy of this proposition was not made clear to the Tribunal).
34In an effort to support his position, the Appellant referenced section 2.3 of the PPS. However, the Tribunal notes that subsection 2.3.2 states the following:
Planning authorities shall designate prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province, as amended from time to time.
Planning authorities are encouraged to use an agricultural system approach to maintain and enhance the geographic continuity of the agricultural land base and the functional and economic connections to the agri-food network.
35The Appellant provided no evidence with reference to the “guidelines developed by the Province” or other considerations described in the above policy.
36In response, the Applicants submitted that the lands are “rural lands” in a “rural area”. The PPS defines “rural areas” and “rural lands” as:
Rural areas: means a system of lands within municipalities that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and resource areas.
Rural lands: means lands which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas.
37In support of their position and to contest the Appellant’s position, the Applicants directed the Tribunal to a United Counties of Leeds and Grenville (the “County”) map contained in the Municipal Record, and also Schedule A of the County Official Plan (“OP”), which clearly shows the subject lands are well outside the agricultural area designated by the County. The Applicants also directed the Tribunal to the Township’s “Zoning By-law No. 2013-10, Schedule A”, which is a map showing the zoning of the subject lands and the surrounding lands. This map clearly shows the subject lands as being zoned “RU” (Rural), not “AG” (Agricultural). Furthermore, the Applicants submitted reference to a map at Schedule “A” of the Township’s OP, which clearly demonstrated that the cluster of 10 residential lots in the immediate vicinity of the proposed lot is not a designated “settlement area”.
38The Tribunal therefore finds that the subject lands are and “Rural Lands” located in a “Rural Area” as defined by the PPS, given that the definitions of same most accurately describe the subject lands and area, it is zoned as such, and every reference in the Municipal Record shows that it is designated rural and not “Prime Agricultural” for planning purposes. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the contention that the 10 nearby residential lots constitute a recognized “settlement area” for planning purposes.
The Statutory Framework
39To grant an application for Consent, the Tribunal must be satisfied that no plan of subdivision is required and the Tribunal must have regard for the relevant criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act (the “Act”).
40In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the severance of a single 1-acre lot in a rural zone in the subject circumstances does not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the subject municipality. The Tribunal therefore moves on to consider the relevant criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.
41Based on the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds that the contentious criteria of s. 51(24) in the present case are as follows:
(a) the effect of [the Consent] on matters of provincial interest as referred to in s. 2 [of the Act]; [and]
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan [of the County and Township];
42As it relates to matters of provincial interest referenced at s. 51(24)(a), the Appellant’s submissions were focused on the following:
(b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;
The Tribunal is accordingly persuaded that, pursuant s. 51(24)(a) and 2(b) of the Act, the Tribunal must have proper regard for the effect of the Consent on the protection of agricultural resources.
43In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires that a decision of the Tribunal affecting a planning matter, in this case the application for Consent, must be consistent with the PPS. Pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must also have regard for the decision of the Committee and the information and material that the Committee considered in making its decision (i.e. the Municipal Record, which the parties accepted contained the materials before the Committee in the present case).
44To sum up, in determining if a Consent should be granted in the present case, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the PPS and have due regard for:
the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources;
whether the proposed Consent conforms to the OPs of the County and Township;
the decision of the Committee; and
the contents of the Municipal Record.
45The Tribunal confirms that it has had due regard for the decision of the Committee to approve the Consent, and the Municipal Record which includes the information and material that was before the Committee. The Tribunal finds, however, that the Committee either failed to properly apply the MDS standards of the provincial guidelines, or it did not have enough information to properly consider it. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the present case turns on the issues of consistency with the PPS and due regard for the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources and conformity with the applicable OPs, based on the limited information before it.
Consistency with the PPS
46The Tribunal was directed by the parties to the following sections of the PPS as it relates to lot creation in rural areas:
1.1.5.2 On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are:
c) residential development, including lot creation, that is locally appropriate;
1.1.5.4 Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted.
1.1.5.6 Opportunities should be retained to locate new or expanding land uses that require separation from other uses.
1.1.5.7 Opportunities to support a diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses.
1.1.5.8 New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.
47The Appellant testified that the proposed Consent will negatively affect his livestock operations by introducing new residential development within an unacceptable proximity to his and other livestock facilities in the area. He cited a lack of compliance with provincially determined MDS formulae in particular. In the context of the PPS, the Appellant claimed a lack of consistency with sections 1.1.5.6, 1.1.5.7, and 1.1.5.8.
48The essence of the Applicants’ testimony is that their proposed lot is appropriate (and thus consistent with PPS sections 1.1.5.2 and 1.1.5.4) and, viewed in isolation, will not have a negative effect on the Appellant’s operations or any other livestock operations in the area (and is thus consistent with PPS sections 1.1.5.6, 1.1.5.7, and 1.1.5.8). They claimed compliance with the applicable MDS formulae.
49Upon review of the parties’ respective evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that, while the proposed Consent is consistent with sections 1.1.5.2 and 1.1.5.4 of the PPS, the Consent must comply with MDS formulae in order to be consistent with sections 1.1.5.6, 1.1.5.7, and 1.1.5.8 of the PPS. If not, the Consent fails the statutory requirements of s. 3(5) of the Act.
50As described in greater detail above, the Tribunal finds that it has not been provided with sufficient information to conclusively determine compliance with the relevant MDS formulae. The onus is on the Applicants to satisfy the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Consent is consistent with the PPS.
Regards for the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources
51The Tribunal finds that, in the present case, the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources is measured in practically the same way as consistency with PPS sections 1.1.5.6, 1.1.5.7, and 1.1.5.8.
52Neither party provided an Agricultural Impact Study to the Tribunal to provide a more comprehensive evidentiary basis in support of their respective positions. Instead, both parties focused their evidence and submissions on compliance with MDS formulae. As a result, the only information that the Tribunal has before it to determine the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources is through the parties’ MDS formulae submissions (albeit incomplete).
53Again, as described in greater detail above, the Tribunal finds that it has not been provided with sufficient information to conclusively determine compliance with the relevant MDS formulae. The Tribunal therefore cannot measure the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources, and consequently cannot satisfy the statutory requirement to have due regard for the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources.
Regards for conformity with the Official Plans of the County and Township
54The Tribunal was directed by the parties to the following sections of the County OP as it relates to rural lands' objectives, permitted uses, land use policies, and consents:
3.3.1 Objectives: The Objectives of the rural lands are to:
b) Protect and promote agricultural uses […] and normal farm practices
d) Promote opportunities to support a diversified rural economy by protecting agricultural uses and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses
e) promote limited development that is compatible with the rural landscape and character and can be sustained by rural service levels […]
h) provide opportunities to locate new or expanding land uses that require separation from other uses
3.3.2 Permitted Uses: The following policies will apply in determining the uses that are permitted in the rural lands:
a) The primary uses of the land will be for:
iii. limited residential development, which will be defined in the local municipal Official Plans;
vi. agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices […].
3.3.3 Land Use Policies: The following land use policies apply to the rural lands:
e) All farm and non-farm development will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae as implemented through the applicable local municipal planning documents.
l) Lot creation in the rural lands will only be permitted in accordance with the policies of this Plan and the local municipal Official Plan.
7.6.3.2 Consent: It is the policy of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville that:
a) Applications to create lots through the consent to sever process will be in accordance with the policies contained in the local municipal Official Plans which are required to be in conformity with the policies contained herein and provincial Policy […]
b) Consent will not be granted if the application is contrary to the polices of this Plan or local municipal Official Plans.
55The Tribunal was also directed to the following sections of the Township OP as it relates to development located adjacent to agriculture uses, residential separation distances from other uses, intent of rural designation, and consent policies:
2.17.2 Development where Agriculture and Non-Agriculture Uses are Adjacent: 1. it is a policy of this Plan to address land use compatibility issues related to non-agricultural and Agricultural uses through the application of the Minimum Distance Separation I (MDS I) and Minimum separation II (MDS II) formulae, as may be amended from time to time, to a new non-agricultural uses and agricultural uses, respectively.
3.18 Residential Separation Distances from Other Land Uses: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, any new dwelling shall be located minimum distances from certain zones or land uses on other lots as follows: From Livestock Facilities […] as per the minimum Distance Separation I (MDS I) formula, as issued by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
3.6.1 Intent of the Designation (Rural): The lands designated Rural represent the bulk of lands within the Township and include a wide variety of land types and activities at a relatively low density. These lands are characterized by their historical role in accommodating the farm and rural communities, as well as recreational uses. The intent of this Plan is to retain the rural and recreational flavour of the Rural lands while providing for a modest amount of compatible and orderly new development.
5.3 Consent Policies: 1. A maximum of three new lots (excluding the retained lot) shall be created from a land holding as it existed on January 1, 2001, when the Township of Athens came into being.
56Upon review of the parties’ respective evidence and submissions, and the above excerpts of the County and Township OPs, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Consent conforms with those sections of the respective OPs which speak to allowing limited low-density development in rural areas.
57However, the Tribunal cannot conclusively determine whether the proposed Consent conforms with those policies of the OPs which speak to protecting agricultural uses, normal farm practices, and/or maintaining adequate separation distances between agriculture and non-agriculture/residential uses. This, again, comes down to an issue with insufficient information provided by the Applicants which is necessary to determine compliance with applicable MDS formulae.
58The Tribunal therefore cannot measure conformity of the proposed Consent with the County and Township OPs. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot satisfy the statutory requirement to have due regard for conformity with the OPs.
Summary and Conclusion
59The Tribunal finds that the application for consent does not require a plan of subdivision. However, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the application for Consent adequately meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) or requirements of s. 3(5) of the Act due to a lack of information provided by the Applicants in relation to MDS formulae calculations.
60Without sufficient MDS formulae information, most evidentially as it relates to the retained lands, the Tribunal simply cannot satisfy itself that the proposed Consent is consistent with the PPS, and cannot measure the effect of the proposed Consent on the protection of agricultural resources (as listed at s. 2 of the Act) or whether it conforms to the OPs of the County and Township as it relates to protection of agricultural resources, normal farm practices, or adequate separations between livestock facilities and residential uses. The Tribunal accordingly cannot satisfy the statutory requirement to have due regard for the protection of agricultural resources or conformity with the aforementioned OPs, based on the information provided.
ORDER
61THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional Consent is not to be given based upon the information provided to the Tribunal.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.