Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001307

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1819213 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment – Appeal of Decision

Description: To create a new zoning by-law for the Countryside Area that implements the policies of the Town of Georgina Official Plan.

Reference Number: Town File No. 03.05BT

Property Address: Part Lots 16 & 17 Concession 3

Municipality/UT: Town of Georgina/ Region of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001307

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001072

OLT Case Name: 1819213 Ontario Inc. v. Georgina (Town)

Heard: February 10, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Representative*

1819213 Ontario Inc. Thu Tran Khue Nham

Town of Georgina Andrew Biggart*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY david brown ON february 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed by 1819213 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13 (“Act”) against the approval of Zoning By-law No. 600 (“ZB600”) by the Town of Georgina (“Town”).

2The Town’s Official Plan (“OP”) came into force and effect on November 23, 2016. In accordance with s. 26(9) of the Act, the Town is required to amend all zoning by-laws to ensure that they conform with the policies and land use designations of the OP.

3The Town undertook the process of updating its comprehensive zoning by-law to bring it into conformity with the OP. The first phase of the process addressed the zoning for the Countryside Area of the Town and, on November 15, 2023, the Town Council passed the ZB600.

4The Appellant owns a vacant parcel of land having an area of 8.08 hectares (“ha”) and a lot frontage of 65 metres (“m”) on the east side of Highway 48, south of Thomas Drive (“Subject Lands”). The lands are legally described as Part of Lot 1, Concession 2 (Georgina).

5The Subject Lands are located within the Countryside Area and ZB600 proposes to change the zoning affecting the Subject Lands from Rural (RU) to Environmental Protection (EP), and Agricultural Protection (AP).

6The Appellant made submissions before Council and filed written submissions expressing their concerns that the proposed zoning for the Subject Lands would limit the future development plans the Appellant has for the Subject Lands.

7The Appellant filed an appeal against ZB600 on December 14, 2023.

MERIT HEARING

8Ms. Tran and Mr. Nham (the “Representatives”) attended and advised that they are the principals of the corporation that is the Appellant in this matter. It became apparent to the Tribunal that the Representatives were unfamiliar with the planning process, and this was further compounded as English is their second language and the use of typical planning terms and terminology were not clearly understood by the Representatives.

9The Tribunal, with the consent of the Town’s Counsel, engaged in a discussion with the Representatives and was able to determine that their opposition can be summarized as follows:

1. ZB600 zones the majority of the Subject Lands Environmental Protection (EP) which prohibits the development of the Subject Lands.
2. The Town advised the Representatives that they must do an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) if the wish to develop their property.
3. Why are the neighbouring lands to the north and the south zoned with an industrial zone designation and did they have to submit an EIS?
4. Why is the open area in the middle of the Subject Lands zoned Environmental Protection (EP)?

10The concerns identified are similar to those matters identified on the Issues List (“IL”) included in the Procedural Order (“PO”), issued by the Tribunal with respect to this matter.

11The Town’s Senior Policy Planner, Tolek Makarewicz, a Registered Professional Planner, attended and submitted a Witness Statement in support of Town’s passing of ZB600.

12Mr. Makarewicz, in response to questions from the Tribunal, confirmed the zoning applying to the Subject Lands prior to the passing of ZB600 was Rural (RU). The Rural (RU) zoning designation permitted: a residential dwelling that existed prior to September 8, 2008; a single-family dwelling on a lot having a minimum lot frontage of 180 m and a minimum lot area 20 ha; and temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers. It was noted that the property is currently vacant and has been vacant for at least the past 50 years according to the Town based aerial photography records.

13Mr. Makarewicz further advised the Tribunal that the Town’s typical practice when considering a proposal to redevelop a parcel of land zoned Rural (RU) under the prior zoning by-law would be to require that the proponent submit an Application to Rezone (“Rezoning Application”) for the lands. He confirmed that a Rezoning Application could include the requirement that, among other reports, an EIS is to be filed where the lands were designated as Environmental Protection under the OP. He confirmed that the Subject Lands are designated Environmental Protection and Agricultural Protection in the OP and should a Rezoning Application be submitted, an EIS would be required.

14The Tribunal asked Mr. Makarewicz if the Environmental Protection (EP) zoning designation would prevent the Appellants from developing the Subject Lands and he responded that the Representatives are permitted to submit a Rezoning Application, accompanied by an EIS, to be considered by the Town for a development proposal. Should the Town support the Application, he confirmed for the Tribunal that a new zoning designation would likely be an Environmental Protection (EP) zone with a site-specific exception as has been done on other similar properties within the Town.

15The Tribunal discussed the zoning affecting the lands bordering the Subject Lands on the north and south sides. Mr. Makarewicz confirmed that the zoning on those lands predates the passing of ZB600 and was “carried forward” in the new ZB600.

16The Tribunal reviewed the OP with the Representatives and Mr. Makarewicz and confirmed that the limit of the Environmental Protection designation was created by identifying the limit of the Natural Heritage Features on the Subject Lands and adding a 30 m buffer around the features. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr. Makarewicz confirmed that the buffer area effectively overlapped in the “open area” in the middle of the property identified by the Representatives, and this is why the Environmental Protection designation in the OP extends over the majority of the Subject Property, with the exception of a small portion at the rear (east side) of the Subject Property.

17Having clarified the questions and concerns raised by the Representatives, the Tribunal confirmed with the Representatives that they will be required to prepare their own development proposal and submit it to the Town to change the zoning to permit any form of development on the Subject Lands. Further, the submission will include a Rezoning Application and, at a minimum, will require the submission of an EIS.

18The Representatives acknowledged that ZB600 does not impact the process required to secure an approval to permit the development of the Subject Lands. Further, they acknowledged that the Town can not change the zoning applying to the Subject Lands to permit the development of the Subject Lands without a privately initiated Application to Rezone.

19As a result of the above acknowledgements, the Appellant took no position with respect to the passing of ZB600 and subsequently led no evidence in opposition to the passing of ZB600.

SUBMISSIONS

20Mr. Makarewicz reviewed the planning policy framework applying to the Subject Lands, advising that the Subject Lands are designated Protected Countryside in the Greenbelt Plan and form part of the Natural Heritage System.

21The front portion, approximately one third, of the Subject Lands is located within the regulated area of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (“LSRCA”). Mr. Makarewicz advised that any development of the Subject Lands will require a permit from the LSRCA as part of the approval process.

22The York Regional Official Plan (“YROP”) locates the Subject Lands within the Regional Greenlands System and is designated as Agricultural Area in the Land Use designations. The YROP further identifies the presence of provincially significant wetlands and woodlands on the Subject Lands.

23The OP designates the Subject Lands as Environmental Protection Area and Agricultural Protection Area. The OP also identifies Key Natural Heritage Features on the Subject Lands in the form of woodlands and wetlands.

Issues

24Mr. Makarewicz reviewed the issues identified by the Appellant in the IL and address them as follows:

Issue 1

Is the Environmental Protected (“EP”) zoning that has been proposed for the majority of the lands located at Part Lot 1, Concession 2 in Georgina, as in R208463 and owned by 1819213 Ontario Inc. (the “Lands”) appropriate?

25Mr. Makarewicz opined that the proposed Environmental Protection (EP) zoning is appropriate for the Subject Lands. He advised that the zoning will bring the Town’s zoning by-law into conformity with the OP, which designates the property Environmental Protection with the rear portion designated Agricultural Protection which aligns with the Agricultural Protection (AP) zoning in ZB600.

26Mr. Makarewicz proffered that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) which directs growth and development to Settlement Areas in Policy 2.3.1, whereas the Subject Lands are not located within a Settlement Area. In consideration of the Natural Heritage Policies, the Subject Lands have been identified as part of the Natural Heritage System (“NHS”), and the proposed zoning will recognize and protect the NHS. Similarly, the rear of the property has been identified as part of an Agricultural System and the proposed zoning will protect those lands for long-term agricultural use as directed in Policy 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2.

Issue 2

Is it appropriate to zone any portion of the Lands EP?

27Mr. Makarewicz opined that the Environmental Protection (EP) zoning is appropriate for the Subject Lands as it reflects the designation of the Subject Lands in the OP.

Issue 3

If it is appropriate to zone any portion of the Lands EP, what are the appropriate boundaries for the EP designation?

28Mr. Makarewicz proffered that the boundaries of the proposed Environmental Protection (EP) zoning correspond directly with the boundaries for the Environmental Protection designation provided in the OP, as it relates to the Subject Lands. He proffered that the proposed zoning in ZB600 conforms with the OP.

Issue 4

If any or all of the Lands are not appropriately zoned EP, what is the appropriate zoning category that should be applicable to the Lands, and in particular, is it appropriate to zone the Lands:

a. Under the Rural Zone category? b. Under the Institutional Zone category? c. Under the Agricultural Zone category? d. Under any of the M-Industrial Zone categories? e. Under any of the Commercial Zone categories?

29Mr. Makarewicz opined that the appropriate zoning of the Subject Lands is Environmental Protection (EP) and Agricultural Protection (AP) in conformity with the OP. No justification for any of the other zonings identified in Issue 4 have been provided and they would not conform to the current OP designation applying to the Subject Lands.

30Mr. Makarewicz proffered that any of the uses identified in Issue 4 would require an amendment to the OP to support a change in the zoning for the zone categories identified.

31In conclusion, Mr. Makarewicz opined that ZB600, as approved by Town Council, has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms with the Greenbelt Plan. The ZB600 conforms with the YROP and the OP.

32Mr. Makarewicz recommended that the Appeal be dismissed and ZB600 be approved.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

33The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence proffered by Mr. Makarewicz and finds that the Appeal should be dismissed.

34The proposed zoning designation boundaries reflect the extent of the Environmental Protection and Agricultural Protection boundaries contained in the OP as they affect the Subject Lands. The Tribunal finds that ZB600, as approved by Town Council, conforms to the OP, and fulfills the Town’s obligations under s. 26(9) of the Act.

35The Tribunal finds that ZB600 has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, and the YROP.

36The Tribunal finds that the concerns raised by the Appellant have been satisfactorily addressed with the assistance of the Town’s Senior Policy Planner during the Hearing. The Tribunal has provided the Appellants with clear direction that should they wish to change the zoning on the Subject Lands, the appropriate process would involve them initiating a Rezoning Application and, as explained by the Town’s Planner, an EIS would be required to accompany any such application.

37The Tribunal notes that the dismissal of the appeal will not result in any prejudice against a future application submitted by the Appellants, should they choose to proceed with their development plans.

38The approval of ZB600 represents good planning and is in the public interest.

39The Tribunal dismisses the Appeal.

ORDER

40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against Zoning By-law No. 600 of the Town of Georgina is dismissed.

“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.