Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 09, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL130823
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Garry Sanderson
Appellant: Township of Armour
Appellant: Paul Van Dam
Appellant: Glen Thompson
Subject: By-law No. 31-13
Municipality: Township of Ryerson
LPAT Case No.: PL130823
LPAT File No.: PL130823
LPAT Case Name: Sanderson v. Ryerson (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, as amended
Referred by: Ministry of Natural Resources
Objector: Eleanor & Jim Armstrong
Objector: Morley & Diana Bonazza
Objector: Robert Farrar
Objector: David & Terry Galey; and others
Applicant: 1668830 Ontario Limited, Glen Thompson
Subject: Application for a Class A licence for the removal of aggregate
Property Address/Description: Lots 4 & 5, Concession 6
Municipality: Township of Ryerson
LPAT Case No.: PL130823
LPAT File No.: MM130073
Heard: Written submission received on April 30, 2021
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1668830 Ontario Limited
David White
Township of Armour
Edward Veldboom
Township of Ryerson
John Ewart
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1On January 13, 2021 a status update was conducted via Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”). During the TCC counsel for the Applicant requested that the matter be administratively closed until such time that his client could address the haul route conditions. Counsel for the Township of Armour (“Armour”) and the Township of Ryerson (“Ryerson”) requested time to get instructions from their clients. The Tribunal agreed to the request and set a further TCC to be heard on February 25, 2021. The purpose of the February TCC was to inform the Tribunal of those directions and for the Tribunal to consider whether the file would be administratively closed
2During the February 25, 2021 TCC, only counsel for Armour appeared. As a result the Tribunal ordered that written status update submissions from all Parties be submitted to the Tribunal no later than April 30, 2021 for the Tribunal’s review and consideration to administratively close the file.
3David White, counsel for the Applicant, gave a brief explanation that his client was an investor to the project but had to take over when the original proponent passed away. The Tribunal was informed that the Applicant has been working to resolve the Haul Route issue and has recently been introduced to an individual that has experience in the aggregate sector. The Applicant believes that they have a potential solution that they believe can be negotiated and resolved by the end of 2021.
4John Ewart, counsel for Ryerson, responded to the written update by the Applicant and indicated that Ryerson is not in agreement to any further extensions of the matter. The Tribunal was informed that should the Tribunal provide an extension to the end of 2021, Ryerson will renew its request to have the matter dismissed.
5In response, Mr. White submits that Ryerson signed Minutes of Settlement that agreed to support the application, the approval of the zoning by-law, and aggregate licence. Mr. White further submits that dismissing the application would prejudice the Applicant whereas an extension to the end of the year would have no prejudice to Ryerson. Mr. White maintains that should this request not be acceptable that the matter be placed on an inactive list with the Tribunal.
6Edward Veldboom, counsel for Armour, indicated that while Armour would like to see the matter come to conclusion, they did not object to an extension to December 21, 2021. Should the matter not be resolved by that date, Armour suggests that the decision of the Tribunal be amended to deny the approvals of the ARA Licence and Zoning By-law Amendment.
7The Tribunal recognizes the desire of Armour and Ryerson to have this matter come to a conclusion. As the Parties had been originally asked to seek direction that the matter be concluded before the end of the current term of Council, October 2022, the request for an extension to the end of 2021 is reasonable.
ORDER
8The Tribunal Orders that an extension for the satisfaction of the Tribunal’s conditional prerequisite to the issuance of a Final Order as provided for in the original Orders of the Tribunal issued on April 7, 2015 and June 20, 2016 is hereby granted. The Tribunal will continue to withhold its Final Order pending notification that the Haul Route Agreement has been entered into, to and until December 21, 2021.
9The Parties are instructed to provide a status update to the Tribunal on or before noon of December 21, 2021 to the Tribunal Case Coordinator.
10Should the prerequisite condition regarding the Haul Route issue not be satisfied by December 21, 2021 the Tribunal will then initiate a Motion, as indicated by the Board in paragraph 9 of the Decision of June 20, 2016, and accept written submissions by that same date as to the final determination of the original application and appeal given the Applicant’s inability to satisfy the condition on the haul route matter and obtain the final order. Written submissions shall be no more than 10 written pages and are to be submitted to the Tribunal Case Coordinator no later than 5 pm on January 14, 2022.
11No further notice is required
12The Member is seized on the matter.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.