Loerts v. Petrolia (Town), 2022 CanLII 63794

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 14, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001953 (Formerly) PL210227

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: William Loerts

Appellant: Greg Racher

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 4

Municipality: Town of Petrolia

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001953

Legacy Case No.: PL210227

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001953

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210227

OLT Case Name: Loerts v. Petrolia (Town)

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

Appellant: Greg Racher

Subject: By-law No. 16-2021

Municipality: Town of Petrolia

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001964

Legacy Case No.: PL210230

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001953

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210227

Heard: May 12, 13 and 17, 2022 by video hearing and by written submissions ending June 21, 2022

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Racher Farms Ltd. and William Loerts

C. Léger

Elbee Investments Sarnia Limited

P. Lombardi

L. McFalls (student-at-law)

Town of Petrolia

R. Gray

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND S. MANN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Town of Petrolia (“Town”) adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 4 (“OPA”) and passed Zoning By-law Amendment No. 16-2021 (“ZBA”) as sought by Elbee Investments Sarnia Limited (“Applicant”) to permit residential development within a 10-hectare (“ha”) woodlot (“woodlot” or “site”) within the southwest corner of the Town, in the County of Lambton (“County”). The following aerial photograph (from Exhibit 3) identifies the site, labelled as “Woodlot.”

2Racher Farms Ltd., the owner and operator of agricultural lands abutting the site, appealed the OPA and ZBA to the Tribunal. William Loerts, a resident along Country View Drive whose property backs onto the woodlot, appealed the OPA only. Both of these Appellants were represented by the same counsel and no issues were raised on their unified approach to the hearing.

3The Town and the Appellants are statutory Parties, and the Tribunal granted Party status to the Applicant on consent of the Parties.

4The OPA and ZBA seek to remove the woodlot’s status as a “Significant Woodlot.” At issue is whether residential development should be permitted within this woodlot. The focus is whether all necessary studies have been completed under the collective term of Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) and related policies.

5For the reasons elaborated in this Decision, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s forestry, tree impact, and endangered species studies, while helpful in addressing certain requirements, do not sufficiently address all of the components of an EIS as required by policies of the Province, County and Town. Such deficiency results in the failure of the OPA and ZBA to satisfy all legislative requirements and results in these applications being refused. The Tribunal has no evidence to conclude that development cannot proceed on this site in future, but such potential requires a thorough and conclusive EIS prior to further consideration by the Town.

6Several years ago, the Town designated and zoned this site as a Significant Woodlot. The result of this Decision is to ensure that any further consideration of the Town to the removal of this woodlot’s current protection is supported and enabled by a complete EIS.

7Numbers used in this Decision are believed to be accurate, but given slight variations to numbers in evidence and submissions, and their conversion where necessary to metric units, minor inaccuracies may exist but would not result in any change to the outcome of this Decision.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

8In making a decision under the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to these appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2. Under s. 2.1(1), the Tribunal must also have regard to any decision Town Council made under the Act that relates to the same planning matter, and the information considered by Town Council in making those decisions.

9Under s. 3(5), the Tribunal’s Decision on the OPA and ZBA must be consistent with the provincial interests expressed in policy statements, being the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) in effect at the date of this decision.

10Under s. 17(34.1), the Town’s OPA must conform with the County Official Plan (“COP”). Under s. 24(1), the ZBA must conform with the Town Official Plan (“TOP”), as amended.

Summary Positions

11The detailed arguments of the Parties are summarized briefly as follows.

12The Appellants submit that the Applicant has not completed the work necessary to identify the site’s natural heritage features and functions, the potential impacts of development on those features and functions, and appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts. The reports of the Applicant’s consultant, MTE, assess the site for only threatened or endangered species and do not assess the ecological functions or significant wildlife habitat for the site. The Appellants argue that the only ecological testimony is from their qualified ecologist whose evidence is uncontroverted. The MTE studies and the review by the Applicant’s forester do not address the standard and full requirements of an EIS.

13The Applicant responds that all necessary studies were completed to the satisfaction of relevant local and provincial authorities, including the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”), the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (“CA”), the County, and the Town. While a full EIS was not required, deference is warranted to the County and Town decisions, given this site’s existing Draft Plan approval and subject to conditions requiring a Tree Environmental Impact Study and a Tree Saving Plan, now completed. Favourable mitigation will be achieved by the retention of 2.8 ha of the woodland, a root protection zone to the rear of dwellings, and substantial funding for reforestation elsewhere in the County resulting in a net increase of forest cover. As viewed by the Town, with full retention of this isolated woodlot neither feasible nor possible, the proposed balance of environmental protection and residential development fully addresses provincial and local policies.

14The Town responds in concert with the Applicant, submitting that the history of the site supports the Town’s decisions, given the site’s Residential designation in the TOP in 2000, and zoned Residential that same year, followed by the Draft Plan approved in 2007. The Town submits that the woodlot’s identification in the current 2017 Zoning By-law, without corresponding provisions, is for information purposes related to the conditions of Draft Plan approval. The Town argues that the Appellants’ request for further environmental study is not supported by facts, and such conjecture should be rejected.

WITNESSES

15The Tribunal affirmed and qualified five professional witnesses to provide opinion evidence in their field of expertise noted below:

For the Appellant:

• Bradley Baker – ecology
• Allan Ramsay – land use planning

For the Town:

• Robert Nesbitt – land use planning

For the Applicant:

• Donald Craig – forestry
• William Pol – land use planning.

16In addition, Robert Leaper, representing the Applicant, provided brief contextual evidence confirming the Applicant’s intent to develop the site in accordance with its and the Town’s professional witnesses’ recommendations.

CONTEXT

17The site’s undisputed planning context is as follows.

18In 1999, this site and other lands at the periphery of the Town were annexed from the adjacent Township of Enniskillen and became part of the Town.

19In 2000, the TOP was amended to include and designate the annexed lands, including designating this site as Residential.

20In 2007, the County granted draft plan approval for a residential Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”), with conditions, affecting this site, the abutting lands to the north, and lands to the southeast. The first three Phases of the development have been completed to the southeast of the site, where 53 lots with detached dwellings now exist.

21Extensions to Draft Plan approval have been granted such that it remains in effect today. Condition 3 to Draft Plan approval requires “That the Owners obtain necessary amendments to the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law as required.” Condition 11 requires a “Tree Environmental Impact Study” and a “Tree Saving Plan.”

22The Applicant now wishes to proceed with Phase 4, involving this woodlot area and the open field to the north, all located to the west of existing residential lots in the Town. Within the woodlot area, the Draft Plan includes streets and 74 residential lots with woodlot strips or corridors remaining at the edges and through the centre of the site. With 55 lots proposed to the north of the woodlot, Phase 4 includes a total of 129 lots.

23The COP includes this site within the “Urban Centre” land use designation on Map 1, Growth Strategy. The site is not identified as a “Natural Heritage System Feature” on Map 2, Natural Heritage System of the COP.

24The TOP designates this site as a “Significant Woodlot (LCNHS)” on Schedule A, Land Use Map. “LCNHS” refers to the Lambton County Natural Heritage Study, 2015.

25The Town’s Zoning By-law No. 63 of 2017 (“ZBL”) zones this site as “R1 – Residential 1” and outlines the site as “Significant Woodlot (LCNHS)” in an overlay on Schedule A.

26In connection with the Draft Plan conditions and PPS requirements, and in support of this OPA and ZBA, the Applicant filed three reports by forester Mr. Craig: “Forest Inventory and Report”; “Estimating Effects of Forest Removal on Residual Forest Strips”; and “Follow up Site Inspection” (collectively, the “forest reports”). In addition, the Applicant filed two reports by MTE to address species at risk requirements: “Preliminary Screening for Species at Risk” and “Butternut Health Assessment” (the “MTE reports”).

POLICIES AT ISSUE

27As outlined above, the Parties’ arguments focus on whether the features and functions of this woodlot have been studied sufficiently to enable an assessment of the effects of this development and suitable mitigation, if appropriate.

28As covered by the planners’ evidence, the Tribunal accepts that this site is located within a settlement area, being the focus of growth for planned residential development within the County and the Town. The site is adjacent to similar existing and planned residential uses, and will utilize and build on existing transportation and utilities infrastructure. The need for, and attractivity of, this development are accepted. The Tribunal finds that the residential use sought for the site satisfies Provincial, County and Town policies for suitable housing within compact communities.

29Such finding leaves the focus of this Decision on the treatment of the woodlot, and that issue is explored in detail below. On the evidence of the professional witnesses, the key provisions and policies related to the woodlot and applicable here are as follows (with main concepts in bold).

30Regard for the provincial interests in s. 2 of the Act includes:

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions.

31Consistency with the PPS invokes the following sections:

1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:

a) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; …

h) promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity;

2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

2.1.3 Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E1, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

b) significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E …;

d) significant wildlife habitat; …

unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

32Chapter 8 of the COP lists “significant woodlands” and “significant wildlife habitat” as “Group B features” of the Natural Heritage System. The COP then elaborates on features:

It is important to recognize that the habitat of endangered species and threatened species, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat are functions associated with habitat features such as wetlands, woodlands, ANSIs, valleylands, and watershed systems. Therefore, though a feature may not appear “significant” from a cursory standpoint, it could be critical in terms of these functions.

For Group B features, development may be permitted if it can be demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that no negative impacts on the features or their associated ecological functions will result.

33The COP Map 1: Growth Strategy designates this site as “Urban Centre.” Map 2: Natural Heritage System does not include this woodlot, however, the Map 2 Legend notes “Refer to ‘Chapter 8’ of the Official Plan regarding features not identified on Map 2.”

34The COP s. 8.1.1 clarifies that “Map 2 shows many, but not all, of the Natural Heritage System’s features.” Further explanation and direction are set out in the next sections:

8.1.2 Group A and B natural heritage features identified on Map 2 or otherwise identified by the Natural Heritage policies of Chapter 8 are to be considered as overlays to the designations on Map 1. Corridors and core areas on Map 2 are provided for information only and are not considered land designations. Despite the designation lands may have on Map 1 and the Growth Strategy, development of lands will be generally directed away from Group A and B features and/or subject to such evaluations and conditions as required by the Natural Heritage policies (see policy 8.8.3.8 also).

8.1.4 Local municipalities will develop policies to protect and improve Group A and B features of the Natural Heritage System and should identify and protect Group C features and other features of local significance. Group A and B natural heritage features identified on Map 2 or specifically described in this Plan (e.g. significant woodlands) will be identified in local land use maps and schedules.

8.1.9 The County and local municipalities may require development applications within or adjacent to lands designated as part of the Natural Heritage System to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study, as set out in Section 8.8.3, to evaluate features and determine what impact that the development may have or is expected to have on Natural Heritage Features and their functions. …

8.1.10 Where an Environmental Impact Study has been completed, the Approval Authority must be satisfied that the evaluation demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions, including whether impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated so that there is no net negative impact.

35As referred to above, s. 8.8.3 and its eight sub-policies guide the process and content for any required EIS.

36The COP then directs the protection of “Significant Natural Areas” in s. 8.2, including “significant woodlands” in s. 8.2.1. Section 8.2.2 provides clarity for Group B features:

b) Development proposals and site alteration within the Group B features described in the introduction to Chapter 8, including adjacent lands, will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

37The COP s. 8.2.5 requires the review of potential habitat for species at risk and any necessary protection under the Endangered Species Act.

38The COP s. 8.2.8 notes that significant wildlife habitat “may be coincident with other significant natural areas identified by this Plan” and goes on to direct that:

… The MNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide must be used to identify and determine significant wildlife habitat on a site-specific basis when development or site alteration requires an environmental impact study.

39Of focus in this case, the COP s. 8.4 addresses “Woodlands” with the goal “to protect the remaining forest cover of the County …” Significant woodlands are defined in s. 8.4.2 as “any forested area that: a) is 2 hectares or greater in size, b) has woodland interior habitat (100 metres from all edges) …” The COP directs that:

8.4.1 Local municipalities are encouraged to protect woodlots. Local municipalities will identify significant woodlands in their official plans and zoning by-laws using the criteria and mapping contained in the draft Lambton County Natural Heritage Study (2014).

8.4.4 Development will generally be directed outside of the dripline of significant woodlands and adjacent lands unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features and their ecological functions.

8.4.10 Where forest cover has been removed and is to be replaced as a condition of an environmental impact study and/or development approval, the use of a variety of indigenous species of vegetation is encouraged. Restoration work should be required at a rate of twice the area of forest cover that was removed. …

40The TOP s. 5 approaches Natural Heritage in conformity with the COP:

5.2.1 The Town will designate significant natural areas on 'Schedule A’; and will encourage those lands that exist on private property to be maintained in their natural state where possible. Development and site alteration will be prohibited in wetlands and prohibited in significant woodlands, significant valley lands, significant wildlife habitat and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. …

41The TOP s. 11.6, as generally repeated in s. 11.13, sets out criteria for considering the redesignation of an Environmental Protection area, which includes the “Significant Woodlot” designation on Schedule A:

11.6 Where any Hazard and Environmental Protection areas are under private ownership, the Official Plan does not intend that this land will necessarily remain as Hazard and Environmental Protection nor will it be construed as implying that such land is free and open to the general public or that the land will be purchased by the Town or any other public agency. An application for redesignation of lands designated Hazard and Environmental Protection may be approved by Council after taking into account:

a) the sensitivity of the natural area and/or the existing physical hazards;

b) the potential impacts of the redesignation on sensitive areas or the impact of the hazards on the proposed redesignation;

c) the proposed methods by which these impacts may be overcome in a manner consistent with accepted engineering techniques and resource;

42The TOP s. 11.14 sets out the study requirements for the protection of habitat for species at risk under the Endangered Species Act.

43The Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2010 (“NHRM”) is a Provincial guideline for implementing the natural heritage policies of the PPS. For areas with 5 – 15% of land remaining in forest cover, it recommends that all woodlands be considered significant if they satisfy one of several criteria, including: being 4 ha or larger; containing interior habitat; or containing forest species that are in decline (Table 7-2). The NHRM s. 13.5 and Appendix C provide guidance on the process and content of an EIS, including the potential impacts to be studied and possible mitigation measures.

44Following the PPS and NHRM directions, the LCNHS was completed in 2015. This woodlot was not one of the selected woodlands studied and is not contained within a Primary Corridor on Figure 1.1, LCNHS. The LCNHS recommends the identification and protection of significant natural areas, including all woodlands greater than 2 ha in size.

ISSUES and FINDINGS

45This case turns on the findings related to whether an EIS is required, and if so, whether its requirements have been sufficiently addressed. The Tribunal finds that an EIS is indeed required, and while some of the NHRM requirements for an EIS have been addressed, specific feature and function requirements that are lacking or absent include multi-season wildlife assessments, interior habitat, and potential species of concern. Full assessment in accordance with the NHRM and accepted ecological practices should be conducted. On the evidence of Mr. Baker, the Tribunal accepts that in designated Significant Woodlots, one should assume the presence of candidate functions until and unless demonstrated otherwise by thorough study.

46The planners generally agree that this site is a Significant Woodland either in substance or at least, in name – “Significant Woodlot” – as designated by the TOP and labelled or zoned in the ZBL. This fact necessitates the OPA and ZBA that are before the Tribunal.

47Per the NHRM, with an area of 10 ha, this woodland substantially exceeds the size criterion, contains interior habitat, and includes Butternut and Big Shellbark Hickory trees, being rare species at risk. While not identified in the LCNHS as part of a natural corridor, forested sites like this are recommended for designation and protection. Accordingly, the COP calls for the protection of woodlands and the TOP designates this site as Significant Woodlot.

48Mr. Nesbitt testified that this site has an underlying designation of Residential in the TOP. Such underlying designation is not apparent on the TOP’s Schedule A - Land Use. While that designation may have been intended in the 2016 OPA which added the Significant Woodlot designation, the Tribunal was not taken to evidence confirming a Residential designation. Regardless of a potential underlying designation, the Parties accept and the Tribunal finds, that the site is designated as Significant Woodlot which remains core to this case, whether or not an underlying designation exists.

49The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s argument that the PPS policies, and the relevant policies of the COP and TOP, must be read in full and applied together, with the goal of balancing potential competing interests in the pursuit of good planning. However, the Tribunal finds that, while the PPS policies for liveable communities are suitably addressed by this development, the policies for natural features have not been fully addressed, including the PPS s. 1.1.1 a) to avoid development that may cause environmental concerns. To this argument of the Applicant, the Tribunal finds that insufficient information is available here to fully assess all policies in pursuit of a balanced approach.

50The Town OP and ZBL identify this woodlot as significant, and the PPS policies of s. 2.1.5 are prescriptive and clear in their intent for significant woodlands: “Development … shall not be permitted … unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions” (emphasis added). The Tribunal accepts the largely uncontested evidence of ecologist Mr. Baker that while certain features and functions have been addressed, the standard contents of an EIS have not been studied and assessed. Mr. Craig acknowledges that he did not prepare an EIS.

51The Town and Applicant rely, in part, on the sequential history of planning decisions affecting this site, with emphasis on the Draft Plan. The Tribunal is less influenced by that history. The Tribunal must find that this OPA, today, is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the COP. As introduced above, and detailed below, the Tribunal is unable to conclude on the evidence that the development is consistent with PPS s. 2.1.5. and conforms with related COP policies.

52The Parties generally agree that a full EIS has not been completed, although the Applicant and Town submit that sufficient study has confirmed the reduced condition of the woodlot and that potential impacts are mitigated by the retained treed strips and through reforestation elsewhere via the financial contribution.

53To the reasonable conformity with the COP and TOP, as argued by the Applicant and the Town and opined by their planners, the Tribunal finds that the apparent flexibility of certain sections does not override other policies. While the COP does not specifically designate this site as Significant Woodlands, Map 2 refers to Chapter 8 for features not identified on the map. COP s. 8.1.1 then explains that not all of the Natural Heritage System’s features are mapped. Woodlands are Group B features for which an EIS is required to show no negative impacts to features and functions, in wording similar to the PPS.

54COP s. 8.1.4 requires natural features described by the COP, with a specific example of “significant woodlands,” to be identified by local land use schedules. The TOP responds appropriately with its designation of this site as Significant Woodlot.

55Mr. Pol relies on the flexibility in requiring an EIS by COP s. 8.1.9 stating that such study “may” be required, and s. 8.4.10 noting forest cover removed or replaced “as a condition of an [EIS] and/or development approval” (emphasis added) may require restoration work. In contrast, the Tribunal finds that the Draft Plan is not the only development approval required for this site, as evidenced by this OPA and ZBA. Again, to approve these documents, the Tribunal must find consistency and conformity today. Such is not found in the absence of an EIS.

56The Tribunal accepts that broader flexibility exists in TOP s. 11.6 where an environmental feature may be redesignated after considering its sensitivity, potential impacts, and mitigation methods. Again, the Town may have relied on this section in its decision to approve the OPA based on the Applicant’s studies, but the Tribunal finds that the PPS and COP, along with s. 5.2.1 of the TOP, warrant a full EIS in this case.

57The Tribunal appreciates the evidence of Mr. Craig that this site is an unusually large woodlot within a County of relatively low forest cover, at less than 14%, and that this woodlot, if left intact and managed according to good forestry practices, should recover to a healthy condition over time. Such opinion supports the position of ecologist Mr. Baker that this site is recovering, and as suitably protected at present as a Significant Woodlot, should not be removed without a full EIS to assess features, functions and impacts.

58The Applicant states in closing submissions that “the Town made a determination that full retention of the Woodlot Area was neither feasible nor possible …” On the above evidence from both the forester and ecologist, the Tribunal cannot accept this aspect of the Town’s reasons.

59To the scope of the proposed change, the Tribunal finds that the Draft Plan would have the effect of essentially removing the woodlot. The retained strips are just that – strips of trees – not woodlots, not interior habitat, and collectively account for only 28% of the woodland today. Close to three-quarters of the woodlot would be removed. Such alteration to a designated and zoned Significant Woodlot warrants a full EIS.

60The Applicant’s proposed substantial contribution to the County’s Woodland Conservation Fund would result in desired reforestation elsewhere. While the Tribunal acknowledges the higher contribution rate required by the Town, it represents a focus on mitigation from the forest reports without full knowledge of the ecological features and functions being mitigated.

61Through an indirect path, the original Draft Plan conditions now necessitate an EIS. As noted by Mr. Ramsay, the subdivision condition for any necessary OPA, required now given the Significant Woodland designation in the TOP, results in the need for an EIS to address the PPS, COP and TOP requirements cited here.

62The Tribunal’s decisions reviewed in the Applicant’s closing submissions are found to be based on site- and policy-specific circumstances of little relevance to this case. Here, the sequence of decisions affecting this site includes the proper and consequential decision of the Town to designate and zone this site as a Significant Woodlot. As so identified, and supported by ecological evidence here, an EIS is found to be required, given the separate and distinct focus of the forest reports and the MTE reports.

63The Appellants note a groundwater issue in their closing submissions, to which the Applicant objects. The Tribunal heard only passing reference from Mr. Baker that this site is within a groundwater recharge area. The Appellants’ visual Exhibit contains Appendix Map A to the COP, which includes this site within a “SGRA – (Significant Groundwater Recharge Area)” under the heading “Areas of LOW to MODERATE Drinking Water Threat” but notes that it “does not form part of this PLAN and is provided for information only.” No detailed evidence was proffered at the hearing related to groundwater. The Tribunal leaves such matters to the County and the Town to assess, should the Applicant pursue new applications.

64In summary, through this hearing de novo, the Tribunal must ensure that the OPA and ZBA satisfy today’s requirements. The Tribunal concludes that the Town properly identified this site as a Significant Woodlot and thereby imposed the protections afforded by EIS requirements. Mitigation is a post-EIS consideration, not a pre-emptive step to avoid an EIS, which must demonstrate no negative effects on natural features or ecological functions.

65The Tribunal finds that this OPA and ZBA: fail to have sufficient regard for ecological systems per s. 2 of the Act; are not consistent with the PPS, including s. 2.1.5; fail to conform with the COP, including Chapter 8; and fail to conform with the TOP, including s. 5 and s. 11.6. In the absence of an EIS, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the proposal constitutes good planning in the public interest.

ORDER

66The Tribunal Orders that the appeals are allowed, and the Town of Petrolia Official Plan Amendment No. 4 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 16-2021 are not approved.

“S. Tousaw”

S. tousaw

MEMBER

“S. Mann”

S. mann

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.