Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001984

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) and 22(11.01.12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Maxine Osmond Subject: Application to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of application Description: OPA 22(6.6) and ZBLA 34(10.9) to rezone land from agriculture to residential land use Reference Number: 21.02 Property Address: 30 Agnew Lake Road Municipality: Sables-Spanish Rivers OLT Case No: OLT-21-001984 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001984 OLT Case Name: Osmond vs. Sables-Spanish Rivers (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: OPA 22(6.6) and ZBLA 34(10.9) to rezone land from agriculture to residential land use Reference Number: 21-04 Property Address: 30 Agnew Lake Road Municipality/UT: Sables-Spanish Rivers/Sudbury OLT Case No: OLT-21-001985 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001984

Heard: August 16, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Maxine Osmond	Brian Channon
Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers	Anne Whalen

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal held the hearing in these proceedings on August 16, 2022 by video hearing. The proceedings concern appeals brought by Maxine Osmond (“Appellant”) regarding the refusal by the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers (“Township”) of the Appellant’s applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments. The proposed instruments would permit agricultural uses specific to the keeping of horses at her property located at 30 Agnew Lake Road (“subject property”) in Webbwood.

2The property is a 2.96 acre lot located within the Urban Settlement Area of Webbwood. It is designated as “Urban Residential” under the Township’s Official Plan and zoned “General Residential Zone” under the Township’s Zoning By-law No. 2020-41 (“Zoning By-law”). It has vacant residential lands to the north and south of it, commercial and rural lands to the west, and residential lands to the east.

3The Appellant seeks to have the Township’s Official Plan designation for the subject property changed from “Urban Residential” to “Agricultural”, which would permit the raising of livestock, including the keeping of horses. She seeks to add “Agricultural Use” as a site-specific permitted use in the General Residential zoning, which would allow for the keeping of up to three horses.

4At the commencement of the hearing, Ruth Clare and Kathy Rietkoetter, who each reside in the vicinity of the subject property, requested Participant status in these proceedings. Neither of the Parties objected to these requests for status and the Tribunal granted Participant status to Ms. Clare and Ms. Rietkoetter.

Issues

5When adjudicating official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals under the Planning Act, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendments:

a) are consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));

b) conform with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario); and

c) represent good planning.

6For zoning by-law amendment appeals, the Tribunal must also determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the Township’s Official Plan).

7For both types of appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the Township Council’s decisions regarding the matter and the information and materials that Township Council received in relation to the matter under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

Evidence and Submissions

8Brian Channon, who lives in the area and is an acquaintance of the Appellant, provided fact evidence on her behalf. Anne Whalen, who is the Township Clerk’s Assistant, provided fact evidence on behalf of the Township. The Participants provided inputs in response to questions from the Tribunal.

9Mr. Channon stated that the subject property is a flat piece of property with the Appellant’s dwelling located on it. He stated that she owns vacant land immediately to the south of the subject property, which is zoned Residential, and also vacant land on the other side of Agnew Lake Road, which is zoned Commercial. He said the Commercial zoning across the street allows for horses to be kept there. He referred to several letters from the Appellant’s neighbours supporting the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments and supporting the keeping of horses on the subject property. He said the area where horses would be kept on the subject property would be more than 30 metres from the nearest well and would not impact drinking water in the area. He said the Appellant wishes to have two horses on the subject property and this would not trigger nutrient management requirements. He said manure from the horses would be put on a covered trailer and taken to a farm at least every 30 days.

10In responses to questions from the Tribunal, the Participant, Ms. Rietkoetter, stated that, since the time that she purchased it, the Appellant has upgraded and improved the subject property. She said she lives on the other side of Agnew Lake Road on Rural zoned land. Ms. Rietkoetter said that she and others in the area have kept horses on their properties. She said having horses on the subject property would encourage more people to live in the area. She stated that she had a dug drinking water well and it was never negatively impacted from having horses nearby.

11On behalf of the Township, Ms. Whalen reiterated that the subject property is designated as Urban Residential under the Township’s Official Plan and zoned as Residential. She said this designation and zoning only permit specific uses such as residential uses, local commercial uses, and home-based businesses. She said they do not permit agricultural uses, such as the keeping of horses. She said such uses would not be consistent with the settlement pattern of the community and could lead to local drinking water issues. She said PPS policy 1.1 requires the maintenance of healthy, liveable and safe communities and the keeping of horses in a residential area would not be consistent with this. She noted that the Nutrient Management Act does not envision agricultural uses in Residential areas and accordingly does not address these issues. She said the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario focuses on encouraging growth in Northern Ontario and that Webbwood is one of the few Urban Residential areas in the Township. She said there is a need in the Township to protect its few residential areas for growth.

12In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Participant, Ms. Clare, stated that she owns Residential zoned lands adjacent to the subject property, which would be negatively impacted if agricultural uses were permitted. She expressed drinking water and other concerns. She said she hoped to subdivide and develop her land and this may be impacted if the designation and/or zoning of the subject property is changed.

Findings

13When addressing the official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals concerning the subject property, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and, for the zoning by-law amendment, conforms with the Township’s Official Plan. Although many of the Appellant’s friends and neighbours may support the proposed changes, the Tribunal’s focus is on whether the amendments satisfy the required above-mentioned policy tests; not whether the proposed changes are popular.

14The Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are not consistent with the PPS. In the present case, the Appellant seeks to change the designation of the subject property from Urban Residential to Agricultural and to change the Residential zoning on a site-specific basis so that it allows for agricultural uses. PPS policy 1.1 directs that land uses are to be managed and directed to achieve efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. Ms. Whelan stated that Webbwood is one of the few Urban Residential areas in the Township. It would be inconsistent with the PPS and lead to uncoordinated and inefficient development to direct that the planned land use pattern of this area be used for agricultural purposes. PPS policy 1.1 also includes policies focusing on sustaining healthy, liveable and safe communities. Based on the drinking water concerns raised by Ms. Whelan and Ms. Clare, the Tribunal finds that the introduction of agricultural uses on the subject property would not be consistent with these PPS policies. Although it is frustrating for the Appellant that agricultural uses are permitted across the road but not on the subject property, this is the settlement pattern that has been established for the community.

15The Growth Plan for Northern Ontario promotes and directs growth in the area. It emphasizes the need for well-planned and thoughtfully designed communities. The Tribunal notes Ms. Whelan’s evidence that Webbwood is one of the few Urban Residential areas in the Township; however, the Tribunal was not provided with any specific evidence that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments would conflict with the Growth Plan.

16The Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment does not conform with the Township’s Official Plan. Policy 4.3 of the Official Plan addresses Urban Residential districts. It does not permit agricultural uses in these areas. The Appellant proposes that all manure from horses on the subject property would be removed offsite. However, such requirements, if the Tribunal has the authority to order them, would be difficult to enforce. It would also be difficult to ensure that these requirements pass on to subsequent owners of the subject property.

Conclusions

17The Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are not consistent with the PPS and it finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment does not conform with the Township’s Official Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those in relation to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; and the appropriate location of growth and development. The Tribunal also has had regard to the Township Council’s decision regarding this matter and the information and materials that Council received in relation to it. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments do not constitute good planning.

ORDER

18The Tribunal Orders that the appeals are dismissed.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS VICE-CHAIR

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.