Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
September 10, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000285
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Jacob Bicz
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the use of a lot for a bulk water sales business
Reference Number:
ZBA 16-23-ES
Property Address:
1760 Colborne Street East
Municipality/UT:
Brant/Brant
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000285
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000285
OLT Case Name:
Bicz v. Brant (County)
Heard:
August 29, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jacob Bicz
C. Boyd
County of Brant
R. Welchman
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON AUGUST 29, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals by Jacob Bicz (“Appellant”) against the decision of the County of Brant (“County”) to refuse an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) in relation to the property located at 1750 Colborne Street East (“subject property”).
2The Appellant operates a bulk water delivery company delivering water to wells, cisterns, ponds and water holding tanks as well as recreational pools. The company delivers mainly to farms in Brant County and area. The application proposes to rezone a 1.8 hectare (“ha”) portion of the 25.6 ha subject property from Agriculture (A) to Agriculture – Special Exception with a hold (h-A-XX) to facilitate the creation of a new lot in the agricultural area with a reduced front yard setback (21 metres) for the Agriculture zone and limit the uses to a bulk sales establishment and accessory uses. The balance of the subject property is proposed to be rezoned to Agricultural Site Specific (A-YY) to recognize the reduction in the lot area which will fall short of the lot area requirement for the Agriculture zone.
3The Tribunal received a sworn Affidavit from Viktoria Cermanova, dated July 23, 2024, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given. No further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
Participant Requests
4In response to the notice, the Tribunal received three written requests for Participant status in advance of the CMC from: Surinder Pal Singh, Brian Smith and Marta Haley. No other individuals appeared at the CMC seeking Participant status.
5Surinder Pal Singh is an area resident whose request outlines general public safety concerns arising from the proposal’s impacts in terms of traffic, access to the subject site and the surrounding road configuration.
6Brian Smith’s request explains that he owns a farm directly across the road from the subject property and outlines concerns in relation to preservation of farmland for agricultural use and food production, impacts of the proposed development upon the surrounding area including increased traffic and the potential for soil contamination and air pollution.
7Marta Haley’s request explains that she owns a farm which abuts the subject property and outlines similar concerns to those raised by Mr. Smith in relation to the protection of farmland and the agricultural system.
8The Tribunal granted all three requests with no objection from the Parties.
Party Requests
9One written request for Party status from the Langford Conservancy (“Langford”), through Ella Haley. Langford is a registered not-for-profit which hosts educational workshops aimed at helping area farmers protect farmland through conservation easements and which cares for the Langford Schoolhouse. Langford’s primary interest in the current proposal is ensuring the protection of agricultural land and avoiding potential impacts upon the surrounding farming community. Ms. Haley indicated that she is authorized to speak on behalf of Langford and agreed to submit a written authorization following the CMC. The Tribunal was advised that Langford intended to have a planner give evidence in opposition to the proposal.
10Counsel for the County took no position on the request. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the public interest is more appropriately served by granting Participant status to Langford and objected to the granting of Party status. She pointed out that Langford did not make oral submissions at the public meeting, nor did it provide written submissions to council. She further noted Langford has no direct interest in the proceedings, pointing out that the Langford Schoolhouse is located approximately a kilometer away from the subject property. With respect to the content of Langford’s status request, counsel for the Appellant noted that it largely raises general public interest concerns and expresses a preference for how the subject property should be treated/utilized.
11The foregoing submissions were accepted and the request for Party status was refused. Instead, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Langford. The Tribunal will have the benefit of planning and technical evidence upon which to make a determination on whether the proposal meets the necessary legislative tests, and the public interest will be adequately represented by the County and in the various written Participant statements which outline the concerns of area residents. Langford is directed to submit a written Participant statement to the Parties and the Tribunal no later than 12 p.m. on Friday, September 27, 2024.
12Following the refusal of Langford’s request, Brian Smith requested the Tribunal convert his status to that of a Party rather than a Participant. Counsel for the Appellant objected, pointing out that the concerns set out in Mr. Smith’s Participant Status request are largely duplicative of those raised by Langford.
13Mr. Smith’s request to convert his status from Participant to Party was refused. While his written statement notes that his property is directly across from the proposed development, the content of that statement does not focus on direct impacts thereto, but rather, focuses on the same general public interest concerns raised by Langford and other Participants.
NEXT STEPS
14The Parties advised that they had been engaged for quite some time in discussions which they anticipate will ultimately lead to a resolution of all issues under appeal in the coming weeks. Accordingly, they requested a one-day hearing be scheduled for the purpose of presenting a settlement to the Tribunal, which will be held on Tuesday, October 22, 2024. While the vast majority of Tribunal hearing events commence at 10 a.m., in this case, the Appellant’s planner advised that she is otherwise engaged that afternoon and, as such, the hearing will commence at 9 a.m.
15Parties and Participants 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://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861
Access Code: 765-631-861
16Parties 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.
17Persons 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): 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is 765-631-861.
18Individuals 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 Hearing by video 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.
19The Parties are directed to submit to the Tribunal and Participants all documents in support of the settlement no later than 12 p.m. on Friday, October 11, 2024.
20This member is not seized, but may be available for further case management subject to availability in the Tribunal’s calendar.
21The above case management directives are so ordered.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.