406 Farm Inc. v. Plympton-Wyoming (Town), 2023 CanLII 50971

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001681

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

Applicant/Appellant: 406 Farm Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the redesignation of the subject lands from 'Restricted Agricultural Area' to 'Residential'

Reference Number: OPA 53

Property Address: 4386 Confederation Line

Municipality/UT: Plympton-Wyoming/Lambton

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001681

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001681

OLT Case Name: 406 Farm Inc. v. Plympton-Wyoming (Town)

Heard: May 11, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

406 Farms Inc.

Scott Snider Anna Toumanians

Town of Plympton-Wyoming

Roberto Aburto

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON MAY 11, 2023, AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This matter involves an appeal filed by 406 Farm Inc. (the “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”) against the Town of Plympton-Wyoming (the “Town”) for its failure to make a decision on an application to amend the Official Plan (the “OPA”) within the timeframe prescribed by the Act.

2The lands that are the subject of the OPA are located at 4386 Confederation Line (the “Subject Lands”). The OPA proposes to redesignate approximately 4.2 hectares ("ha") of the Subject Lands from “Restricted Agricultural Area” to “Residential”. The redesignation will facilitate the development of residential lots on the lands that are the subject of the OPA.

3The Subject Lands have a total area of 39.6 ha on the north side of Confederation Line, west of Broadway Street / Oil Heritage Road. The Subject Lands have frontage on Confederation Line on both sides of the property known as 4372 Confederation Line which is owned and occupied by Mike and Judy Hanki (the “Hankis”).

4The Appellant submitted an OPA application on November 13, 2020, with further submissions filed on April 26, 2021 (the “Application”). The Application was deemed complete by the Town on May 20, 2021. On November 17, 2021, the Application was appealed to the Tribunal.

5A Case Management Conference was held on February 21, 2023, at which time the Hankis were granted Participant Status in these proceedings.

6Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the Tribunal was notified that the Appellant and the Town have executed Minutes of Settlement (Exhibit 1) and requested that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a Settlement Hearing. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened these proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the Settlement.

SUBMISSIONS

7Sarah Baldwin attended in response to a Summons to Witness issued by the Tribunal. Ms. Baldwin is a Senior Planner with the County of Lambton (the “County”) and a Registered Professional Planner. Ms. Baldwin was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence as an expert in the area of land use planning.

8The County provides planning services to the Town and Ms. Baldwin's responsibilities at the County include reviewing and providing planning advice for planning matters within the Town. Ms. Baldwin reviewed the Application and prepared a staff report dated June 22, 2021 (the “Staff Report”), recommending approval of the OPA (Exhibit 2).

9Ms. Baldwin advised that the Subject Lands are located at the northwest limit of the Town Settlement Area. The portion of the Subject Lands that are subject to the Application are designated “Urban Centre” in the County Official Plan (“CLOP”) and designated “Restricted Agricultural Area” in the Town Official Plan (“TOP”). The Subject Lands are zoned “Agricultural-2” in the Town Zoning By-law.

10Ms. Baldwin confirmed that the Application was filed on November 19, 2020, was deemed completed by the Town on May 20, 2021, and a Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 28, 2021.

11Ms. Baldwin advised that recent amendments to the CLOP resulted in the redesignation of a portion of the Subject Lands, amongst other lands in the County. The approval of the amendments was granted by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) in 2020 pursuant to a Settlement Agreement. Ms. Baldwin explained that the LPAT appeals involved meetings and negotiations between the County, the Town, and the Appellants. She noted that many of the meetings were privileged and not open to the public.

12Ms. Baldwin noted that the current Application before the Tribunal was considered by the Town through the typical public consultation process and fully open to the public.

13Ms. Baldwin explained that the Application proposes to redesignate a portion of the Subject Lands to a Residential designation. The portion of land is comprised of 4.2 ha, fronting on Confederation Line on both sides of the Hankis property and at a comparable depth to the Hankis property. Ms. Baldwin proffered that the portion of the Subject Lands to be redesignated aligns with the Urban Centre designation in the CLOP. Ms. Baldwin advised that support of the OPA is conditional on the provision of municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater services. The OPA will recognize the existing dwelling on the Subject Lands and make provisions for the retention of the dwelling subject to conditions.

14Ms. Baldwin reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) with respect to the Application and opined that the OPA will provide for the efficient development and use of land noting that the lands to the east have a similar designation in the TOP. She explained that municipal services are existing to the east of the Subject Lands and the OPA will provide for the development of residential uses on the Subject Lands only when full municipal services are available. Ms. Baldwin advised that the balance of the Subject Lands will remain designated for Agricultural use and protect the Prime Agricultural designation applying to those lands. Ms. Baldwin concluded that it is her opinion that the OPA is consistent with the PPS.

15With respect to the CLOP, Ms. Baldwin proffered that the language in the CLOP echoes that of the PPS. She reviewed the goal of the Urban Centre designation which states:

To provide direction for growth in Lambton County in order to strengthen communities, minimize costs, stimulate economic growth, and protect resources and natural heritage areas for their economic and environmental benefits.

16Ms. Baldwin opined that the Urban Centres are the most dense and diverse, and the least rural lands in the County. Policy 3.2.2 of the CLOP states:

Urban Centres contain a wide variety of residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial lands (sic) uses … The travelling public, tourists, and/or residents of other settlements and surrounding agricultural areas regularly rely on the settlement to obtain the necessities and services provided. Development within Urban Centres will occur on full municipal services, except in substantially built up (sic) areas where full services are not practical or feasible, in which case very limited development may occur on municipal water and private septic systems subject to the conditions contained in Section 3.2.6.

17Ms. Baldwin proffered that the Subject Lands are ideally located to enable future residents to take advantage of the Wyoming to Reece’s Corner Trail achieving an active transportation infrastructure goal in Policy 7.3 of the CLOP which states:

To encourage the development of a network of cycling and walking trails throughout Lambton for the benefit of local residents, to improve the experience of visitors to the County, and to facilitate alternative transportation.

18In consideration of the policies and directions of the CLOP, Ms. Baldwin opined that the OPA conforms to the CLOP, subject to the provision that the future development of the Subject Lands is on full municipal services.

19The TOP designation applying to the abutting lands to the east of the Subject Lands is “Residential” and those lands are zoned for residential use subject to a “Holding” provision. The Holding provision is in place to ensure that appropriate services are provided for the eventual redevelopment of the abutting lands. Ms. Baldwin submitted that the TOP provides for new development to take the form of extensions to the existing built-up area and that development is to proceed in such a manner as not to impose a financial burden on the Town. Ms. Baldwin opined that the OPA will conform to this policy direction in the TOP.

20Ms. Baldwin continued that the TOP requires that all development in the Urban Settlement Areas will be serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer services and the developer will be required to provide such services. Ms. Baldwin opined that the OPA maintains the intent and purpose of the TOP and is consistent with the policies of the TOP provided that full municipal services are provided.

21With respect to the matters of provincial interest as set out in s.2 of the Act, Ms. Baldwin advised that she has considered these matters and opined that the OPA has sufficient regard for such matters.

22Ms. Baldwin noted that future development of the Subject Lands will require that the developer obtain a rezoning and the approval of a plan of subdivision.

23Mr. Hanki provided a Participant Statement to the Tribunal (Exhibit 6). Ms. Baldwin reviewed the concerns raised within the Participant Statement and proffered the following responses. With respect to the concerns raised relating to the process, Ms. Baldwin responded that many of the concerns cited relate to the process surrounding the amendment to the CLOP approved by LPAT and do not relate to this proceeding.

24The servicing concerns, provisions of sidewalks, parkland dedication, and stormwater management will be addressed as part of the rezoning application and the plan of subdivision application as these are matters typically addressed at that stage of a development project. Ms. Baldwin continued confirming that Confederation Line is designated as an Arterial Road and that designation will not change as part of future development applications, such as the ones contemplated in relation to the Subject Lands.

25Ms. Baldwin did not offer an opinion with respect to hydro rates or insurance rates. She proffered that a change in address for the Hankis would not be anticipated as part of a redevelopment of the Subject Lands.

26Ms. Baldwin concluded that it is her opinion that the OPA represents good planning and is in the public interest. She recommended that the Tribunal approve the OPA in the form attached to the Staff Report.

27Mr. Aburto confirmed that the Town supports the evidence of Ms. Baldwin and the recommendations contained within the Staff Report.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

28The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Baldwin and in consideration of the testimony of Ms. Baldwin is satisfied that the OPA is consistent with the PPS and has regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act.

29The Tribunal, having regard to the matters of provincial interest, finds that the OPA protects agricultural resources, ensures the adequate provision and efficient use of sewage and water services and waste management systems, represents the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, and is the appropriate location for growth and development.

30The Tribunal finds that the OPA provides for new development to take place in a designated growth area adjacent to a built-up area to allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities as directed in Section 1.1.3.6 of the PPS. The balance of the Subject Property will remain Agricultural thereby protecting the Prime Agricultural lands for long-term use for agriculture as required by Section 2.3.1 of the PPS.

31The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA conforms to the CLOP and brings the TOP into conformity with the CLOP. The OPA will provide for appropriate development within the recently expanded Settlement Area on full municipal services.

32The Tribunal notes that the TOP provides for amendments to the plan so long as the original intent and purpose of the TOP is maintained. The Tribunal accepts the testimony and opinion of Ms. Baldwin that the OPA maintains the intent and purpose of the TOP.

33The Tribunal acknowledges that both the CLOP and the TOP require the lands to be fully serviced for development to occur and the OPA includes provisions to address this requirement.

34The issues raised by the Participant will be appropriately addressed through the future development approvals required.

35The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA represents good planning and is in the public interest.

36The Tribunal allows the appeal and approves the OPA in the form as recommended in the Staff Report.

ORDER

37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and Amendment No. 53 to the Official Plan for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming is modified as follows, and as modified is approved:

a) Schedule "A", attached, is hereby declared to form part of this amendment.

b) The relevant schedule of the Official Plan for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming is hereby amended by changing the designation from “Restricted Agricultural Area” to “Residential” on those lands indicated on Schedule “A” to this amendment.

c) Policy 4.1.1 of the Plympton-Wyoming Official Plan is hereby amended to permit all the permitted uses in the "Residential" designation provided that those lands included in Schedule "A" to this amendment are fully serviced with municipal services to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The following text is to be inserted after policy 4.1.1.8:

4.1.1.8.1) Notwithstanding 4.1.1.8, development (land division) shall be permitted on the part of the property legally described as Concession 3, East Part Lot 14, known municipally as 4386 Confederation Line, so long as full municipal services, inclusive of water, sanitary and stormwater infrastructure, can be extended efficiently to serve the above-noted lands, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any changes to the existing farm dwelling or the property to which the farm dwelling is associated will not be required to provide full municipal services unless it is improved, intensified or redeveloped (this does not include replacement or minor additions). For clarity, this does not fetter the discretion of the Town in relation to any future Planning Act applications or the Chief Building Official with respect to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.

d) The implementation and interpretation of this amendment shall be in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

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.

SCHEDULE “A”