Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 13, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210309

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Susan Gutzman

Subject: By-law No. 2021-15

Municipality: Township of Tyendinaga

OLT Case No.: PL210309

OLT File No.: PL210309

OLT Case Name: Gutzman v. Tyendinaga (Twp.)

Heard: September 15, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Susan and Jerry Gutzman	Self-represented
Township of Tyendinaga	J. Savini*
Suranjita and Mousam Hazarika	Self-represented

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Susan Gutzman appealed the Township of Tyendinaga (“Township”) Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2021-15 (“ZBA”) that permits a dwelling to be established at 28 Rock Street (“site”) in the hamlet of Lonsdale. This Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to plan for a fair and efficient hearing under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

2The Township’s Affidavit of Service for this CMC was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTIES and PARTICIPANTS

3The statutory Parties to the hearing are Ms. Gutzman as the Appellant, and the Township as the ZBA approval authority. The Tribunal granted Ms. Gutzman’s request to include her spouse such that the Appellants are now Susan and Jerry Gutzman (“Appellants”).

4The Tribunal also granted Party status to Suranjita Hazarika, being the owner of the site and Applicant for the ZBA, and similarly granted joint Party status to her spouse, Mousam Hazarika (“Applicants”).

5No requests for Participant status were filed with the Tribunal.

MEDIATION

6The Township and Applicants are open to mediation and settlement discussions, however, the Appellants wish to proceed to a hearing given their firm position that the ZBA cannot satisfy applicable policy and provisions.

ISSUES LIST

7Although a short hearing of two days will be sufficient to hear the appeal, the Tribunal directed that a Procedural Order (“PO”) with Issues List (“IL”) be finalized given that two of the three Parties are not represented by legal counsel and the identified need to scope the Appellants’ issues to matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Counsel for the Township had provided a helpful draft IL that enabled a detailed review at this CMC.

8During the CMC, several of the Appellants’ draft issues were reviewed for alteration or deletion based on the Tribunal’s direction that issues must constitute planning substance related to the ZBA for which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Matters of process, such as what information was or was not available prior to the ZBA’s passing, or the procedures of an outside agency are not considered relevant to this hearing. As a hearing de novo, the Tribunal assured the Appellants that their substantive issues should and will be included on the IL pertaining to such matters as on-site sewage treatment, natural heritage, natural hazards, and holding provisions, all in reference to the relevant requirements under the Planning Act.

9For the Township’s draft issues, it agreed to specify key reference policies from the relevant planning documents.

10Following the foregoing guidance, the Tribunal directed the Parties to discuss and finalize the IL, for which the Township offered to consolidate and forward to the Tribunal. After the CMC had concluded, the Appellants’ request for additional time to refine their IL was granted, following which the Township filed the draft PO while expressing opposition to several of the Appellants’ issues. This Decision now addresses those matters in dispute.

11As directed during the CMC, the Tribunal will exclude issues of a procedural nature while ensuring that substantive concerns related to land use planning are retained. Where the Tribunal finds the substance of an issue to be relevant but not the procedural question related thereto, it amends the wording with the goal of retaining the substantive issue.

12The Tribunal approves the PO contained in Attachment 1, subject to the following changes to the Appellants’ IL for the reasons noted above. These amendments do not prevent a Party from challenging the relevance of an issue at the hearing. The Township is requested to circulate a final PO with the following changes.

• Given the timing of this Decision, the document exchange dates may be altered on consent of the Parties.
• All issues stating “consistent” with the Hastings County Official Plan are reworded as necessary to refer to “conform” with the Hastings County Official Plan.
• Issues 1, 4 and 5 are replaced with: Does the development permit satisfy the relevant policies of the Hastings County Official Plan?
• Issue 2 is replaced with: Has the Applicant completed all necessary studies in accordance with the Hastings County Official Plan?
• Issue 3 is deleted.
• Issues 6, 8, 9 and 10 are replaced with: Does the Zoning By-law Amendment establish appropriate setbacks from the highwater mark and for slope stability purposes in accordance with the engineering report, in conformity with the Hastings County Official Plan and consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement?
• Issue 16 is replaced with: Are the Quinte Watershed policies 3.7.3 a) and e) applicable to this Zoning By-law Amendment and does it satisfy those policies?
• Issue 38 is deleted.

13The Appellants and Applicants do not intend to call evidence at the hearing. The hearing plan is structured to enable them to state their case and later address their positions through questions to the Township’s planning witness.

HEARING

14The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 24, 2021 for two days by video conference as set out below. No further notice will be given.

15Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/148037101 Access code: 148-037-101

16Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 148-037-101.

18Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders the rulings and directions as set out in this Decision.

20This Member is not seized.

“S. Tousaw”

S. TOUSAW 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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: PL210309

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant(s): Suranjita Khaund Hazarika Appellant(s): Susan Gutzman Subject: By-law No. 2021-15 Property Address/Description: 28 Rock Street, Lonsdale Municipality: Township of Tyendinaga Municipal File No.: ZA 2021-06 OLT Case No.: PL210309 OLT File No.: PL210309 OLT Case Name: Gutzman v. Tyendinaga (Twp.)

1The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2The video hearing will begin on November 24, 2021 at 10 a.m.

3The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 2 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

5The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

9The witnesses for the hearing shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

Requirements Before the Hearing

10An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 12 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

11Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 12 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 12 below.

12On or before October 22, 2021, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 20 below.

13On or before November 5, 2021, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 20 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

14Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within fourteen (14) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 20 below.

15The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 12, 2021.

16Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case co-ordinator, on or before November 19, 2021.

17A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

18A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

19The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before November 19, 2021 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

20All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

21No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member: S. Tousaw

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
On or before October 22	Exchange of witness statements, summonsed witness outlines, and expert reports
On or before November 5	Exchange of reply witness statements (if any)
On or before November 5	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
On or before November 12	Finalize Joint Document Book
On or before November 19	Finalize Hearing Plan
November 24, 25	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 – PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Susan Gutzman and Jerry Gutzman (Appellants)
2. Suranjita Hazarika and Mousam Hazarika (Applicants)
3. Township of Tyendinaga

Participants N/A

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

[*] Designates an Issue which has been included in the Issues List without prejudice to the right of Parties, in evidence and/or argument, to dispute whether the Issue is a properly stated land use planning issue or is properly before the Tribunal for adjudication.

Appellants’ Issues:

*1. Is the direction from The Municipality to the applicant to first obtain a development permit consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 7.1 Goals and Objectives 7.1.1 Goals, including 7.1.1 d) and 7.8 Pre-Consultation, Complete Applications & Other Studies including policies 7.8.1, 7.8.1.1, 7.8.1.2, 7.8.1.3, 7.8.1.4, 7.8.1.5?

*2. Did the Township and/or County comply with the Hastings County Official Plan policies 7.1 Goals and Objectives 7.1.1 Goals, including 7.1.1 d) and 7.8 Pre-Consultation, Complete Applications & Other Studies including policies 7.8.1, 7.8.1.2, 7.8.1.3, 7.8.1.4, 7.8.1.5?

*3. Is it consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan policy Goals and Objectives 7.1.1, including 7.1.1 d) e) for the County and/or the Township to fail to inform The Quinte Conservation Authority that a zoning amendment would be required on a property they are reviewing for a development permit?

*4. Is it consistent with the planning process policies of the Hastings County Official Plan, for the Township to incorporate a development permit within a zoning amendment for a lot that first requires a zoning amendment to allow development? Hastings County Official Plan policy Goals and Objectives 7.1.1, including 7.1.1 d) e)?

The development permit was: a) referred to and discussed in the consideration of the Zoning By Law Amendment, i.e. minutes of the meeting, b) referred to in the Hastings County Plan Report, “The conditions of the Conservation Authority’s development permit have been included as conditions of-H holding symbol being recommended to be applied to the Special Residential Second Density R2-6 zone.”

*5. Follow up to Question 4: If it is deemed to be inconsistent with the planning process, does the incorporation of the development permit within the zoning amendment process prejudice the planning process and the resulting re-zoning of the lot or what weight does the development permit have on the decision to pass the Zoning By Law Amendment?

*6. a) Does the development site plan (included in the Zoning By Law agenda package) comply with the 18 metre setback from the highwater mark as per the Zoning By Law Amendment? b) Are the setbacks on the Site Plan (as included in the Agenda Package) ‘and as amended on May 14 after the Zoning By Law Amendment passed’ consistent with the setbacks of the Zoning By Law Amendment?

7. Should the proposed, discussed and agreed upon Eljen Septic System be included in the holding ‘H’ provisions of the ZBA or in a development agreement per 7.3.2.2 d) Holding By -Laws Hastings County Official Plan and as per Tyendinaga Zoning By Law 5.4 Holding Zones?

*8. Should the terms of the Cambium Engineering Report (report used by Quinte Conservation to determine slope stability) dated July 2018, be included in the holding ‘H’ provisions of the ZBA or in a development agreement as per 7.3.2.2 d) Holding By-laws Hastings County Official Plan and as per Tyendinaga Zoning By Law 5.4 Holding Zones including i.e. Site Preparation, Frost Penetration, Excavations, Dewatering, Backfill and Compaction and Foundation Design?

*9. Is the Cambium Report for Site Preparation consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan Policy 5.2.1.0 Terrain Alterations?

*10. As indicated in The Hastings County Planning Report, Cambium Engineering Report and by Quinte Conservation, this lot is a steep slope. Therefore, Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Planning Act Part V, S 34 (1) 3. Marshy Lands etc., 3.2 i,ii,iii Natural features and areas and the Tyendinaga Township Zoning By Law 5.7.1 ii) Lands Zoned Environmental Protection and consequently Hastings County Official Plan 4.5 Environmental Protection and Land Designation, 4.5.1 Rationale/Strategy for Development including 4.5.2.3?

11. Is there sufficient evidence to warrant a reduction in the required setback of 30 Metres from the high water mark for the Zoning By Law Amendment to be consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan 4.5 Environmental Protection and Land Designation 4.5.1 Rationale/Strategy for Development including 4.5.3. Flooding Hazards including 4.5.3.5 a), setback e) Setback, Erosion Hazard 4.4.2, setback 4.4.2.2, 4.2.4 Fish Habitat including setback 4.2.4.3, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.6 Aquatic Species at Risk including 4.2.6.1 Setback 4.2.6.6,4.2.6.8, and Tyendinaga Zoning By Law 5.9.2

12. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Provincial Policy Statement 2.1 Natural Heritage including 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.5 c) d), 2.1.7, 2.1.8, and 6.0 Definitions: Valleylands, Natural Heritage Features and Areas, Natural Heritage System, Wildlife Habitat, Negative Impacts and The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.3 Natural Heritage Features and Areas including 4.3.1 Natural Heritage System, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.4,4.3.1.5?

13. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Provincial Policy Statement 3.1 Natural Hazards including policies 3.1.1 b) c) and 6.0 Definitions: Hazardous Lands, Hazardous Sites and The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.4 Natural Hazards including 4.4.1.2 b), 4.4.2 Erosion 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.4 a), b), 4.4.2.5, 4.4.2.6 4.4.3, 4.4.3.1, 4.4.3.2, 4.4.3.3, 4.4.3.4?

14. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 1.1.4 Rural Areas in Municipalities including policies 1.1.4, 1.1.4.1 a) h), 1.1.4.3?

15. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Provincial Policy Statement 2.0 Wise Use and Management of Resources?

*16. Excerpt taken from The Quinte Watershed Policy Manual pg 10 “The “development” policies included in this manual are complementary to the Natural Heritage (Section 2.1) and Natural Hazard (Section 3.1) policies within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under the Planning Act, 2014.” As per : The Provincial Policy Statement Part 1 Preamble: The policies of the Provincial Policy Statement may be complemented by provincial plans or by locally-generated policies regarding matters of municipal interest and 1.2 Coordination including policies 1.2.1 c) e) f) and Part II: Legislative Authority: then, Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Quinte Watershed Policy 3.7.3 a) and e) which speaks specifically and solely to ‘vacant lots of record’ as per the Provincial Policy Statement 6.0 Definitions: Valleylands, Significant, Natural Heritage Features and Areas, Natural Heritage System, Erosion Hazard?

17. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan policy 7.0, 7.1 Goals and Objectives including policies 7.11 a) d) e) f) g) h)?

18. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 7.8.8 Site Evaluation Report including 7.8.8.1, 7.8.8.2 a) b) c) d) f) g) h) I) j) k), 7.8.8.3 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) I), 7.8.8.4, 7.8.8.5, 7.8.8.6, 7.8.8.7?

19. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 7.8.6 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) including policies 7.8.6.1,7.8.6.2,7.8.6.3, 7.8.6.4, 7.8.6.5, 7.8.6.6, 7.8.6.7, 7.8.6.8 and Table A-7.1 – Measures of Adjacency for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

20. Is the Hastings County Planning Report consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan policies 7.8.2 Planning Report including policies 7.8.2.1, a), b) c) 7.8.2.2?

21. Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan policy 1.7.1 Planning Principles of The Official Plan including policies 1.7.1 a), f), g), i, 1.7.3, a), b?

22Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.0 Sustainable Natural Environment & Resources including Goals 4.1, 4.1.1 a) b) c) e) f) i) k) j) o); Including Objectives 4.1.2, a) c) g) h)?

23Is the Zoning bylaw amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.2.4 Fish Habitat including 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.4.6?

24Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.2.6 Aquatic Species at Risk including 4.2.6.1, 4.2.6.2, 4.2.6.3, 4.2.6.4, 4.2.6.5, 4.2.6.6,4.2.6.8?

25Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.3.5 Significant Valleylands including 4.3.5.3, 4.3.5.4 a) f), Table A-4.3 4.3.5.5

26Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species 4.3.2 including 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.2.3, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.2.5, 4.3.2.6, 4.3.2.7?

27Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.3.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat including 4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.3.5, 4.3.3.6, 4.3.3.7?

[28] Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 2.0 SECTION II - COMMUNITIES WITH OPPORTUNITIES 2.1 Goals and Objectives, 2.1.1 Goals including 2.1.1 e) Cultural Heritage Resources 2.1.2 a)?

29Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 5.0 SECTION V – EMERGING RURAL ECONOMY, 5.1 Goals and Objectives including 5.1.1 including 5.1.1 c), d), 5.1.2 a) I), ii) iii) b) 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 “ The Land Between”, 5.2.8, 5.2.9?

30Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 5.3 Cultural Heritage Resources, 5.3.1 General Policies including 5.3.1.1, 5.3.1.2, 5.3.1.3 a) b) c) g)h) i), 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.5, 5.3.1.7, 5.3.2.1 b) ii), c) i), ii), 5.3.2.6?

31Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 2.5 HAMLET LAND USE DESIGNATION, 2.5.1 Rationale/Strategy for Development 2.5.1.2, 2.5.4 Planning Policies including 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and Provincial Policy Statement Part IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System

32Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 5.5.3 Waterfront Residential Development including 5.5.3.1, 5.5.3.7, 5.5.3.8?

33Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.2.3 Groundwater including policies 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.9?

34Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with The Hastings County Official Plan policy 4.5.3 Flooding Hazards, including 4.5.3.2.c), e), 4.5.3.5 e)?

35Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Tyendinaga Township Zoning By Law 5.9.4 Fish Habitat, Significant Valleylands, Significant Wildlife Habitat including habitat of Endangered/threatened species?

36Is the Zoning By Law Amendment consistent with the Tyendinaga Township Zoning By Law 5.13 Existing Undersized Lot and 5.3.8?

37Does the Zoning By Law Amendment represent “Good Land Use Planning.”

*38. Is the Planning Act Review, as presented at the Zoning By Law Amendment meeting, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement policies 3.1 Natural Hazards and 2.1 Natural Heritage?

Township’s Issues:

1. Is the zoning by-law amendment consistent with the 2020 PPS, including sections 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1?
2. Does the zoning by-law amendment conform to the Official Plan, including policies 2.5.2.1(a), 2.5.4.2, 5.5.3.7?
3. Does the zoning by-law amendment conform to the Township of Tyendinaga Zoning By-Law, including section 5.9.2?
4. Does the zoning by-law amendment represent good land use planning?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Township Jason Budd, Senior Planner Sharlene Richardson, Quinte Conservation Regulations Officer

2. Appellants Suzie Gutzman Jerry Gutzman

3. Township Reply

ATTACHMENT 4 – LIST OF WITNESSES

Township

1. Jason Budd, Sr. Planner, County of Hastings
2. Sharlene Richardson, Regulations Officer, Quinte Conservation

Appellants

1. Suzie Gutzman
2. Jerry Gutzman