Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001167

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Estate of Jean Stewardson

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit

Reference Number: ZBA No. 118 of 2024

Property Address: 3346 Michigan Line

Municipality/UT: Plympton-Wyoming/Lambton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001167

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001167

OLT Case Name: Estate of Jean Stewardson v. Plympton – Wyoming (Town)

Heard: June 4 to 5, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Agent(*)
Estate of Jean Stewardson (“Appellant”)	Aaron Stewardson*
The Corporation of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming (“Town”)	David Sunday

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON June 5, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeals arise under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the Town Council’s denial of the Application for Zoning By-law Amendment (“Application”) to rezone the retained portion of the lands from Agricultural-1 (“A1”) to the No Dwelling Agricultural Zoning (“ND-A1”) to accommodate a future severance of a surplus farm dwelling on the lands municipally known as 3346 Michigan Line (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximate 93.29 acres (37.75 hectares) with a frontage of approximate 302 metres (“m”) on Michigan Line and a depth of approximate 1350 m.

3There are detached buildings of 960, 528 and 192 square feet (1680 square feet or 156 square metres in total), an existing farm dwelling, and a septic system on the southeast corner of the Subject Lands.

4The immediate surrounding area is dominated by farm parcels of a variety of sizes, most of which contain a farm dwelling. There are a number of existing residential lots ranging between 1 and 3.5 acres in size. The farm abutting the east contains livestock facilities, the nearest of which buildings is an estimated 72 m from the Subject Lands’ lot line.

5The County of Lambton Official Plan (“County OP”) designates the Subject Lands as “Agricultural Area”. The Subject Lands are designated “Agricultural Area” in the Town’s Official Plan (“Town OP”) and are zoned A1 under the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 97 of 2003.

6The Appellant sought the approval of the Application to facilitate a future application for consent to sever a parcel in the southeast corner of the Subject Lands with 232 feet (70.7 m) frontage on Michigan Line and 320 feet (97.5 m) depth. This severance will result in a severed lot area of 0.69 hectares (1.7 acres). The severed lot will include all the buildings on the Subject Lands, including the existing dwelling.

STATUS REQUEST

7The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant Status nor individuals at the hearing requests for either status at the hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

8There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

EXHIBITS

9The following Exhibits were marked during the Hearing:

1. Notice of Hearing marked as Exhibit 1;
2. Amended Book of Documents of the Corporation of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming (142 pages) marked as Exhibit 2;
3. Applicant and Appellant Evidence and Information Book (728 pages) marked as Exhibit 3;
4. Witness Statement of Will Nywening (32 pages) marked as Exhibit 4; and,
5. Evidence Statement of Aaron Stewardson (6 pages) marked as Exhibit 5.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

10The Tribunal qualified Mr. Will Nywening, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (“CIP”), to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

11Mr. Aaron Stewardson was not qualified as the expert witness for the Appellant as he was acting as the agent during the hearing. The Tribunal received the written evidence statement from Mr. Stewardson prior to the hearing and determined that Mr. Stewardson’s evidence would only be considered from the perspective of the Appellant’s consultant, who prepared the Application package to the Town and corresponded with the Town during the Town’s processing. The Tribunal carefully assessed the evidence in this statement and gave proper weight while preparing the decision.

12Mr. Stewardson stated that the Town’s staff report appeared providing conflicting recommendations to the Council regarding the approval of the Application. In Mr. Stewardson’s opinion, the Town OP allowed the severance if the residence becomes surplus to a farming operation.

13Mr. Nywening confirmed that he supported the opinion in the Town’s staff report to the Council and his position remained the same as recommending the denial of the Application.

14Mr. Nywening indicated the Subject Lands are located within a prime agricultural area and the purpose of this Application was to sever a residence surplus to a farming operation. Mr. Nywening further stated that the Subject Lands were owned by the Appellant, whose will indicated that the severed lot with the existing house would be conveyed to an individual who resided in the house but did not farm the lands. Mr. Nywening held the opinion that the existing house on the Subject Lands should be surplus to the farm operations and should not be severed as a residential lot, which was not associated with agricultural use with respect to the policies and definitions in Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”).

15Mr. Nywening clarified that it was an error in the first paragraph of the Town’s staff report, but the staff provided clear recommendation of the denial of the Application to the Council as the Application did not meet the relevant policies in the PPS 2024, the County OP, and the Town OP, and did not meet the required Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”) or the necessary retained farmland lot area.

16Mr. Stewardson stated that the Subject Lands were zoned A1 and the farm dwelling area to be severed would also be zoned A1. Mr. Stewardson further indicated that there would be no changes to the zoning being proposed with the creations of the new zone around the dwelling area and the remaining farmland to be zoned ND-A1, which would not allow any residential dwellings on this parcel of the Subject Lands.

17Mr. Stewardson demonstrated to the Tribunal that the Guideline #10 from MDS document was reviewed and MDS I and II were not applicable to this Application as this housing was existing while the nuisance from the barns on the adjacent properties already existed.

18Counsel for the Town got confirmed by Mr. Stewardson that Mr. Stewardson was not a professional land use planner and were related to the beneficials in the Appellant’s will.

19Mr. Nywening presented to the Tribunal that MDS requirements still applied though there was a lot line for the existing house. Mr. Nywening explored different scenarios through the overview of MDS requirements and stated the 302 m separation distance in Mr. Stewardson’s MDS calculation submitted to the Town was appropriate and was similar to the required minimum separation distance, which is 300 m when a livestock housing capacity was greater than 25 Nutrient Units, as indicated in the MDS guideline. Mr. Nywening further summarized his opinion that the requested reduction to the required MDS calculation was not minor in nature, would not be appropriate, and failed to meet the applicable tests under the Act.

20Counsel for the Town confirmed with the Appellant; the Appellant acknowledged that the Town could choose to exercise its option to implement stricter restrictions through its zoning than the provincial guidelines.

21Mr. Nywening stated that the requirement of minimum lot size (2 acres) could be remedied by increasing the severed lot area, but the retained lot in the size of approximate 37 hectares would be smaller than the required 38 hectares in the County OP which would be inappropriate and would not meet the applicable tests under the Act as the County and the Town considered agricultural use as a primary use.

22Mr. Nywening expressed his opinion that the proposed lot to be severed did not meet the conditions of severance permitted under the County OP and the Town OP, both of which imposed Agricultural Area policies similar to PPS 2024 policies with respect to severing surplus farm dwelling, as the parcel to be severed would be a single detached residential dwelling lot. Mr. Nywening also stated that both County and Town OP established policies for Agricultural Area designations, that agricultural uses were the priority land use in this area and the required protection of farmland and faming activities.

23In Mr. Nywening’s opinion, the parcel to be severed was considered as a change in the use of the existing dwelling from an agricultural use to a non-agricultural use as it would no longer be associated with farming activities or farm operations.

24Mr. Nywening concluded his opinion that the Application was not appropriate, did not conform with the policies in PPS 2024, County OP, and Town OP, and recommended the Application to be denied.

25The Tribunal prefers Mr. Nywening’s evidence in his witness statement and viva voce, and finds that, though the Appellant sought to keep the lands to be severed in the same zone (A1), it would actually be a residential lot after the severance, instead of a surplus dwelling to farm operation, which does not maintain the provincial interest in the protecting the agricultural resources in the prime agricultural area. Accordingly, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Nywening that MDS requirements had to be met for the new lot to be created through the future severance application prior to the approval of this Application and there is a significant difference between the proposed distance (72 m) and the required MDS in Mr. Stewardson’s calculation (302 m).

26The Tribunal finds that the Application:

a. Is not consistent with the PPS 2024; b. Does not conform with County OP and Town OP; c. Does not reflect the principles of good land use planning; and, d. Does not represent the public interests.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against the Zoning By-law No. 97 of 2003 of the Corporation of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming is dismissed.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU 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.