Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 2, 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)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON DECEMBER 9, 2024 BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1On November 4, 2024 the Tribunal convened a hearing of the merits for an appeal by LJM Developments (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) against the failure of Haldimand County (“County”) to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) in relation to the property at 63 Pyle Road (“subject property”). The hearing was originally scheduled to take place over three weeks, but was reduced to seven days following diligent work by the Parties to narrow the issues in accordance with directives in the Procedural Order governing the proceedings. Pre-hearing meetings between the Parties’ land use planning and agrology witnesses resulted in two detailed Agreed Statements of Facts, which significantly reduced the number of issues to be adjudicated.
[2]