Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 29, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001252 OLT-21-001750 (Formerly PL210325)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Conex Canada Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1507 - Refusal or neglect of Municipality of Central Elgin to make a decision Existing Zoning: Open Space 3 (OS3), Industrial Zone 1 (C1) and Residential Zone 1 (R1) Proposed Zoning: Site-specific Residential Zone 2 (R2), General Residential Zone 1 (R1) and Open Space 3 (OS3) Purpose: To permit a fourteen-unit townhouse development Property Address/Description: 377 Warren Street, Port Stanley Municipality: Municipality of Central Elgin Municipal File No.: ZBA 2609 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001252 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001252 OLT Case Name: Conex Canada Inc. v. Central Elgin (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Mark Hall Applicant: Margaret Berry Subject: Consent Property Address/Description: 377 Warren Street, Port Stanley Municipality: Municipality of Central Elgin Municipal File No.: E14/21 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001750 Legacy Case No.: PL210325 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001750 Legacy Case No.: PL210325 OLT Case Name: Hall v. Elgin (County)
Heard: June 9, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Mark Hall | Self-represented |
| Conex Canada Inc. and Margaret Berry | Paula Lombardi* |
| County of Elgin | Nicholas Loeb* |
| Municipality of Central Elgin | Analee Baroudi* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for two separate appeals, being heard together, to planning applications affecting 377 Warren Street (“site”) in the community of Port Stanley.
2Conex Canada Inc. and Margaret Berry (together, the “Applicant”) obtained Consent from the County of Elgin (“County”) to address the land ownership and rights-of-way associated with a proposed residential development of the site. Mark Hall, a nearby neighbour to the site, appealed the Consent to the Tribunal. From the first CMC Decision, the Parties to the Consent appeal are Mr. Hall (“Appellant”), Applicant, County, and the Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”).
3The Applicant applied to the Municipality for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to permit 14 townhouses on the site. The Municipality did not make a decision on the ZBA within the statutory timeframe and the Applicant appealed the non-decision to the Tribunal. From the first CMC, the only Parties to the ZBA appeal are the statutory Parties, being the Applicant and the Municipality.
4In advance of this CMC, the Applicant and County filed a Notice of Motion which is addressed here. The Parties agreed that suitable next steps in the appeals process for the Consent and ZBA will be determined following the issuance of this Decision on the Motion.
MOTION TO DISMISS
5The Applicant and County (“Requestors”) filed a Notice of Motion requesting the Tribunal to dismiss Mr. Hall’s appeal to the Consent. The Motion is granted for the reasons set out below.
Requestors’ Position
6To assemble land for the proposed development on the site, the County had granted the Applicant’s Consent application to sever 1.2 hectares (“ha”) for the proposed townhouses and adjacent valley/floodlands, and retain 0.2 ha for the existing dwelling. Two easements were also granted: to Enbridge Inc. for a natural gas line; and to the retained parcel for an access right-of-way.
7The Requestors submit that the appeal relates primarily to the legal ownership of a portion of the site where the Appellant alleges that an unopened road allowance leading