Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 11, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001473
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 61-16 - Refusal or neglect of County of Brant to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (A)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses
Property Address/Description: 305 King Edward Street
Municipality: County of Brant
Municipality File No.: ZBA 10-20-MD
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001473
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001473
OLT Case Name: Sifton Properties Limited v. Brant (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of County of Brant to make a decision
Purpose: To permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses
Property Address/Description: 305 King Edward Street
Municipality: County of Brant
Municipality File No.: PS1-20-MD
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001474
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001473
Heard: March 16, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Sifton Properties Limited | Andrea Skinner and Matthew Helfand |
| County of Brant | Jyoti Zuidema |
| Lafarge Canada Inc. | Wayne Fairbrother |
| David and Leah Clement | Self-represented* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON MARCH 16, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals brought by Sifton Properties Limited (“Appellant”) regarding the failure of the County of Brant (“County”) to make a decision on the Appellant’s applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development on the lands located at 305 King Edward Street (“subject property”) in Paris.
2At the CMC, the Tribunal addressed requests for status, the timing of the hearing and the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, the identification of opportunities for settlement discussions, and the scheduling of a further CMC.
Requests for Party Status
3Lafarge Canada Inc. (“Lafarge”) and David and Leah Clement each requested Party status. Lafarge owns lands that are adjacent to the subject property to the west as well as lands to the north and northwest, which are licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act for extractive activities. Lafarge submitted that the proposed residential development would raise compatibility issues with these activities due to the proximity and extent of Lafarge’s operations. Neither the County nor the Appellant objected to Lafarge’s request for status. The Tribunal found that Lafarge has a genuine interest in the proceeding, would be directly impacted by its outcome, and would assist the Tribunal in making a decision on the merits. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds for adding Lafarge as a Party and granted it Party status as requested.
4David and Leah Clement live on King Edward Street across from the subject property. They submitted that stormwater from the proposed development would run through and impact their property. None of the Parties objected to their requests for status. The Tribunal found that they have a genuine interest in the proceeding, would be directly impacted by its outcome, and would assist the Tribunal in making a decision on the merits. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds for adding them as Parties and granted them each Party status as requested.
Requests for Participant Status
5John McDonald and Nancy Dolson each requested Participant status. They each live in close proximity to the subject property. Mr. McDonald raised water, noise, privacy, and other concerns. Ms. Dolson raised water, traffic, orderly development and related concerns. None of the Parties objected to their requests and the Tribunal granted each of them Participant status as requested.
Identification of Issues and Scheduling
6The County submitted that the proposed development is premature. It submitted that there are no municipal services in the area and none are planned for at least 10 years. It submitted that there is a pending decision to be made by the Province to decide whether the subject property is included as excess lands, which could prevent the subject property from being developed until 2051. The County submitted that hearing dates should not be set until the Province makes its decision. Lafarge stated that hearing dates should not be set until the issues are finalized and the question regarding excess lands is determined. The Appellant argued that the excess lands issue should not delay the setting of hearing dates, but it acknowledged that the issues to be adjudicated at the hearing still need to be finalized. It submitted that discussions among the Parties, with experts, are needed to complete the Issues List.
7The Tribunal found that the issues should be identified before hearing dates are scheduled. It ordered that a further CMC will be held in July 2022 at which a draft Procedural Order and Issues List will be finalized and hearing dates will be set. The Parties stated that they would consult and then file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to the next CMC.
Identification of Opportunities for Settlement Discussions
8The Parties expressed an openness to settlement discussions and/or mediation, which the Tribunal encouraged them to pursue.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders that Lafarge Canada Inc. and David and Leah Clement are Parties in this proceeding.
10The Tribunal orders that John McDonald and Nancy Dolson are Participants in this proceeding.
11The Tribunal orders that the Parties file a consolidated draft Procedural Order and Issues List with the Tribunal by Monday, July 18, 2022.
12The Tribunal orders that a further CMC will be held by video hearing on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m.
13Parties 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://meet.goto.com/979388733
Access Code: 979-388-733
14Parties 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.
15Persons 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: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
16Individuals 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 video hearing 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.
17There will be no further notice.
18This Member is not seized.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
Hugh s. wilkins
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.