Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 4, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002738
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2778739 Ontario Corp.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: Rezone to permit a Cannabis Production Facility
Reference Number: Roll No. 001 00119700 0000
Property Address: 13373 County Road 2
Municipality/UT: South Dundas/Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002738
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002738
OLT Case Name: 2778739 Ontario Corp. v. South Dundas (Municipality)
Heard: October 19, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2778739 Ontario Corp.
J. Polowin, M. Polowin
Municipality of South Dundas
W. Leroy
DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement Hearing in the matter of the appeal by 2778739 Ontario Corp. (“Applicant/Appellant”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) from the refusal of the Township of South Dundas (“Township”) in respect of the application to rezone the property and to reduce the setback.
2Tracy Zander, a Registered Professional Planner, provided a Planning Report (Exhibit 4) and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal. Ms. Zander delivered a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale in support of the settlement.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
3The Appellant owns a property municipally known as 13373 County Road 2 (“subject property” / “subject site”) located east of Morrisburg in an area characterized by rural and highway commercial activity.
4The subject property is located at Lot 11, Concession 1, Geographic Township of Williamsburgh, in the Township. The subject site is approximately 110,396 square metres (“m2”) (27.1 acres) in size, and “L” shaped with 340 metres (“m”) of frontage and access from County Road 2. The subject property is zoned Highway Commercial (CH) along the frontage and Rural (RU) to the rear. Since the original application, the Applicant has purchased a vacant lot that has been added to the property and the total area for the subject property after the purchase is 192,769 m2 (47.6 acres).
5To the northeast of the existing building is a waterbody. Since the proposed development will not expand toward the waterbody, the South Nation Conservation Authority does not require an Environmental Impact Statement.
6To the north of the subject site is predominantly vacant lands with one residential development approximately 550 m to the northeast. To the east of the subject site is a highway commercial site containing a Dairy Bar, Chip Wagon, and a single detached dwelling. Further to the east over 300 m away is another single detached dwelling. To the south of the subject property are vacant wooded lands with no development. To the west of the subject property is the Riverside Motel, and further to the east, approximately 225 m away, there is a two-storey single detached residential dwelling.
STATUS REQUEST
7Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal has received a Participant Status request from Mark Derikx. Counsel to the Appellant objected to Mr. Derikx being granted Participant Status, because his issues were unrelated to the zoning amendment.
8The Tribunal’s role is to be fair and objective. The Tribunal granted Mr. Derikx Participant Status.
PROPOSAL, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE TESTS
9The Applicant is seeking to rezone the subject property from Highway Commercial (CH) and Rural (RU) to Highway Commercial (CH-13) with exceptions and to reduce the setback from the Cannabis Processing Facility (“CPF”) to the nearest sensitive land use from 300 m to 180 m (east side) and 225 m (west side). The Applicant intends to retain the currently permitted highway commercial land uses and to add a CPF as a permitted use. A Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) is required to re-zone the subject site from CH and RU to CH – Exception (CH-13) to allow for the development of a CPF.
10Ms. Zander provided an overview of the land use designations and zoning applicable to the subject lands. She explained that the subject property features an unoccupied warehouse at the western side of the subject lands, fronting onto County Road 2 with an unoccupied concrete structure to the east of the warehouse. There is a parking lot that abuts the warehouse to the south and west which will provide sufficient spaces for the future use of the subject site. The subject site contains a private well and septic services.
11The proposed CPF will re-use the unoccupied warehouse with existing servicing in place. Additionally, the proposed development will utilize an air treatment control system to ensure the usage does not emit any noxious odours.
12Ms. Zander went through the applicable Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), specifically to s. 1.1.4.1 (a), (b), (e), (f), explaining that the proposed development will support a healthy, integrated and viable rural area leveraging current rural assets and to s. 1.3.8, stating that the proposed development will lead to job creation in the agronomics sector.
13Ms. Zander, with reference to a detailed evaluation of applicable land use policies contained within Exhibit 4 at pages 3-11, has opined that the proposed development and ZBLA is consistent with the policies of the PPS, conforms to the United Counties of Storomont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan (“SDG OP”) is compliant with the ZBL No. 2010-48; and overall, is representative of good land use planning in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
14After a careful review of Mr. Derikx’s Participant Statement, the Tribunal determined that the issues raised by him regarding stormwater and servicing are unrelated to the requested zoning amendment and will be dealt with at the site plan stage, if required. The odor issue will be addressed by utilizing an air treatment control system to ensure that the facility does not emit any noxious odours.
15Based on the uncontested land use planning opinion evidence provided by Ms. Zander, the Tribunal is satisfied that the development proposal will add to the economic base and employment through job creation, will utilize existing buildings, parking and infrastructure, thus, is representative of good land use planning in the public interest.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and By-law No. 2010-48 is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1, Schedule “A”
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and By-law No. 2022-22 is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1, Schedule “B”.
“P. Tomilin”
P. TOMILIN
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.
ATTACHMENT 1