Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 22, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000419

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

Applicant and Appellant: Brian Lewis

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

Description: To permit the adjustment of the Settlement Area Boundary through a land swap

Reference Number: OPA 18

Property Address: 1119 County Road 20

Municipality/UT: Town of Kingsville

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000419

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000419

OLT Case Name: Lewis v. Kingsville (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Brian Lewis

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the adjustment of the Settlement Area Boundary through a land swap

Reference Number: ZBA-2024-2

Property Address: 1119 County Road 20

Municipality/UT: Town of Kingsville

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000420

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000419

Heard: August 13, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Brian Lewis

Eric Davis Chris Manning

Town of Kingsville

William Good

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Mason ON August 13, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held with respect to appeals filed pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended concerning the refusal of applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment (“Applications”) by the Town of Kingsville (“Town”) for the property municipally known as 1119 County Road 20 (“Subject Property”).

2The Applications were filed by Brian Lewis (“Appellant”) and seek to allow a Settlement Area Boundary Adjustment via a swap of land use designations.

NOTICE

3An Affidavit of Service sworn on June 26, 2024, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding, was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTICIPANT AND PARTY STATUS REQUESTS

4The Tribunal received three requests for Participant status from area residents prior to the CMC. The Participant requests each set out similar objections to the Applications regarding flooding and storm water management, traffic impacts, loss of habitat for wildlife, and safe distances for residential uses to cellular towers. The Parties did not object to the requests, and the Tribunal granted Participant status to Stewart Barber, Yvonne Guldie-Schepens, and Jodie Mallot.

5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received a Party status request from Stephen Higgins, an area resident. In his submission, Mr. Higgins expressed his concerns regarding the Applications related to flooding and stormwater impacts, habitat loss for wildlife, loss of agricultural lands, insufficient infrastructure to support residential development, and appropriate distances for residential uses to cellular towers. It was Mr. Higgins’ submission to the Tribunal at the CMC that he sought Party status to ensure the interests of the community and their concerns with the Applications were duly represented to the Parties and the Tribunal. Mr. Higgins confirmed for the Tribunal that he did not intend to engage a professional planner or other expert to provide opinion evidence on his behalf in any future proceeding on the matter.

6Prior to the CMC, counsel for the Appellant provided a written submission, with reference to relevant case law, objecting to the Tribunal granting Party status to Mr. Higgins. In the written submission and their oral submissions to the Tribunal at the CMC, counsel took the position that Mr. Higgins’ request did not meet the “obvious factors’ test as set out in the seminal case of 1137528 Ontario Ltd. V Oakville (Town), 2010 Carswell, Ont 7078 (OMB). In particular, counsel objected on the basis that:

(1) It was not necessary to grant Party status to Mr. Higgins since the Town was tasked with the statutory obligation of upholding the public interest and is already a party to the proceeding;

(2) Granting of Party status would be duplicative of the Town’s position and that of the Participants; and

(3) While Mr. Higgins lives near the Subject Property, he is not directly adjacent to nor will be impacted by the site-specific changes requested in the Applications.

7Through discussion with Mr. Higgins and the Parties during the CMC, it was ultimately resolved that Mr. Higgins wished to convert his Party status request to a Participant status request. As a result, the Tribunal did not provide a ruling on the Party status request and granted Participant status to Stephen Higgins in the matter.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

8The Parties jointly provided a draft Procedural Order and Issues List (“PO/IL”) in advance of the CMC, and a final version of the PO/IL was provided prior to the