Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 3, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000118
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Gerry Hensels
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request
Description: Alter "Natural Heritage" and "Natural Hazard" designation in order to create two severed lots and one retained lot
Reference Number: OPA 01/24
Property Address: 349 George Street (Plan 117, Part of Lot 5-7N George St. W, William Street, RP, 11R10681, Part 2)
Municipality/UT: Central Elgin/Elgin
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000118
OLT Case Name: Hensels v. Elgin (County)
Heard: August 19, 2025 by Telephone Conference
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Gerry Hensels | Arkadi Bouchelev |
| Municipality of Central Elgin | Analee Baroudi |
| County of Elgin | Nicholas Loeb |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON AUGUST 19, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”), which took place by way of a Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”), before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under section 22(7) of the Planning Act by Gerry Hensels (“Applicant”) resulting from the denial by the Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”) of an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), relating to lands municipally known as 349 George Street in the Municipality (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the OPA is to alter the "Natural Heritage" and "Natural Hazard" designation of the Subject Property to a “Residential” designation. The Applicant wishes to ultimately sever the Subject Property to create two severed lots and one retained lot. An OPA is required to facilitate a future consent application, as the two severed lots will be situated on the eastern portion of the Subject Property, which is currently designated “Natural Heritage” and “Natural Hazard” under the Municipality’s Official Plan.
3The first CMC took place on July 10, 2025 (“First CMC”), wherein the Tribunal confirmed that adequate Notice had been served and no further Notice was required. Additionally, the County of Elgin was granted Party Status and the following were granted Participants Status: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority; and Lorraine Reid. Lastly, a 10-day Merit Hearing was scheduled to commence on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 10 a.m. to and including Monday, February 23, 2026, with the Tribunal not sitting on Monday, February 16, 2026 (Family Day).
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL
4This TCC was scheduled to address issues related to the Issues List (“IL”). Prior to the First CMC, the Tribunal received a number of different versions of the Procedural Order and IL. The Parties had some disagreements regarding the IL, but at the First CMC, they advised the Tribunal that they had been engaging in discussions and hoped to resolve their disagreements independently. As a result, the Tribunal gave the Parties some time to come to an agreement and provide a final version of the IL for ratification and issuance. The Parties were unable to reach an agreement and requested this TCC to receive direction from the Tribunal regarding the scope of the Hearing.
5At the TCC, the Parties advised the Tribunal as follows:
a. Applicant: The issues should only have to do with adjustment of the natural heritage boundary, as those were the issues that were before Council and those were the issues that the Applicant has appealed. The Municipality would like the Hearing to be about more than those issues, and has included a number of policies in the IL that the Applicant believes would extend the Hearing in ways that are not necessary. The Applicant argued that those policies have to do with the severance, which is an entirely different and unrelated matter, while this Hearing only has to do with the OPA, namely revising the Natural Heritage boundary. Furthermore, the Applicant may not even proceed with the severance and does not want that matter to be discussed in the OPA appeal. The only question that the Tribunal should address at this Hearing is where the location of the Natural Heritage boundary should be. If additional issues are to be considered, it would require information and studies (such as a Traffic Study) that is relevant to the consent application and not to the OPA.
b. Municipality: The Applicant is seeking to move the Natural Heritage boundary, and to replace the designation of that location with a settlement designation. In other words, the Applicant is asking that the Tribunal move the Natural Heritage boundary and replace that designation with a “Residential” designation. Thus, policies that have to do with a settlement designation are relevant to the proceedings. Moreover, this was originally a combined OPA / severance application, and the severance issue is still very much alive. The purpose of the OPA (i.e. the severance) should not be ignored. Even the Applicant’s appeal letter indicates that the OPA is being sought to facilitate a severance. All studies accompanying this application were prepared in the context of this site-specific development proposal, and the OPA must be reviewed in light of the development proposal. The Municipality would like policies relating to the residential designation to be before the Tribunal.
6Upon hearing the submission of the Parties, the Tribunal asked a number of questions from each Party. Ultimately, the Tribunal understood that the Applicant intends to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation to “Residential”. Moreover, the current designation is not an overlay and the actual land designation is Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard. Therefore, if the Tribunal moves the boundary of the current designation, it will need to replace that area with a new designation. This is in fact exactly what the Applicant is seeking in this case; namely, that the current designation of the land at issue on the Subject Property be replaced with “Residential”. In other words, despite the Applicant asserting that it simply wants the boundary adjusted, what the Applicant seeks in this appeal is a new “Residential” designation for the entirety of the Subject Property, including the area currently designated Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard.
7The Applicant argued that the land adjacent to the Natural Hazard boundary (the remaining land on the Subject Property) is already designated Residential. Thus, the Applicant is not asking for anything new but is simply asking that the boundary be adjusted with the Natural Hazard boundary being moved over. In other words, the land would be zoned as Residential if not for the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation. If the Tribunal moves the Natural Heritage boundary, the land would automatically become Residential as it would now be part of the adjacent lands. However, the Tribunal explained that this would not be the case. The land would not automatically become Residential if the boundary was moved. For the land to become Residential, the Applicant would have to demonstrate the following at the upcoming Hearing:
a. It is appropriate for the Natural Hazard and Natural Heritage designation boundary to be moved from where it is now (i.e. is the woodland on the Subject Property actually a natural heritage feature or not); and
b. If so, it is appropriate for that land to be designated “Residential”.
8With respect to the IL, the Tribunal explained that, if it is being asked to make a determination on the appropriateness of a “Residential” designation, then policies related to residential uses and settlement areas are entirely relevant to that consideration. As such, it is appropriate for the Municipality to include those issues and policies on the IL.
9The Tribunal directed the Parties to provide the updated IL or a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by September 9, 2025. A few days before this deadline, the Parties advised that they were unable to meet this deadline as they had encountered further issues with formulating the issues. They requested that another TCC be scheduled, and one has now been scheduled to take place on Friday, October 17, 2025 at 9 a.m.
10On that date at the correct time, individuals are directed to call 416-212-8012 or (Toll Free) 1-866-633-0848. When prompted, enter the conference line code 1006967 to be connected to the call. It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time. Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. At this Hearing, the scope of the proceeding is whether the current Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard boundary of the lands at issue should be moved and be replaced by a “Residential” designation.
b. The issues on the Issues List that relate to the scope of the proceeding outlined at paragraph [11a] of this Decision are appropriate and should be included.
c. A Telephone Conference Call is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
12This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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.