Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 8, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000109
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: LJM Developments
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the re-development of the subject lands into a seasonal residential development
Reference Number: PLOP-HA-2020-036
Property Address: 63 Pyle Road (Concession 1, Part Lot 11 Geographic Township of Sherbrooke)
Municipality/UT: Haldimand/Haldimand
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000109
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000109
OLT Case Name: LJM Developments v. Haldimand (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: LJM Developments
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the re-development of the subject lands into a seasonal residential development
Reference Number: PLZ-HA-2020-037
Property Address: 63 Pyle Road (Concession 1, Part Lot 11, Geographic Township of Sherbrooke)
Municipality/UT: Haldimand/Haldimand
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000110
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000109
OLT Case Name: LJM Developments v. Haldimand (County)
Heard: November 4-6 and December 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
LJM Developments
R.D. Cheeseman S.A. Fleming
Haldimand County
S.J. Premi T.A. Richardson E. Alderman (Student-at-Law)
AMENDING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN
1In accordance with Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, whereby the Tribunal may at any time and without prior notice to the Parties correct a technical or typographical error made in a decision or order, the Decision and Order (“Decision”) issued on January 2, 2025, is hereby amended.
2By deleting paragraph [14] from the Decision and replacing it with the following:
14The primary area of disagreement during the first few days of the hearing was whether the development, as proposed, was properly categorized as residential or seasonal resort recreational development. Ms. VanDalen raised concerns that the residents of the proposed cottages could, in theory, occupy those cottages year-round, and noted that the majority of the subject property would be developed with cottages as opposed to recreational uses. On this basis, she characterized the proposal as residential in nature and opined that the subject property was not an appropriate location for residential uses. Given the foregoing, she was of the opinion that the tests of consistency with the PPS and conformity with the OP had not been met.
3In all other respects, the Tribunal’s Decision remains the same.
“S.Braun”
S.BRAUN VICE-CHAIR
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.