Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2026 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: February 9, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Gerry Hensels	Arkadi Bouchelev
Municipality of Central Elgin	Analee Baroudi
County of Elgin	Nicholas Loeb

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH ON FEBRUARY 9, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Appeal was filed pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, by Gerry Hensels (“Applicant”) from the denial by the Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”) of an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), relating to the lands municipally known as 349 George Street in the Municipality (“Subject Lands”).

2The purpose of the original application was for an OPA to alter both the “Natural Heritage” and “Natural Hazard” designation boundaries on the Subject Lands. While there is no other concurrent development application before the Tribunal, the intention behind the OPA is to eventually facilitate a consent application for a severance of the Subject Lands to create two severed lots and one retained lot. The OPA is sought because the two future intended severed lots situated on the eastern portion of the Subject Lands are currently designated “Natural Heritage” and “Natural Hazard” under the Municipality’s Official Plan (“OP”).

3The overarching disagreement between the Parties, initially, centred on:

a. Whether the limits of the Natural Hazard boundary had been accurately and adequately identified such that alteration of the Natural Hazard boundary, and replacement with a Residential designation on a portion of the Subject Lands, would not encroach the Natural Hazard or offend Natural Hazard related legislative and planning policies?

b. Whether alteration of the Natural Heritage boundary, and replacement with a Residential designation on a portion of the Subject Lands, appropriately demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on the Natural Heritage features or its ecological functions, nor offend Natural Heritage related legislative and planning policies?

4Disposition of the matter has now come before the Tribunal to consider the merits of a settlement reached between the Parties (the “Settlement”).

5A Minutes of Settlement has been executed by all Parties. The terms of the Settlement provide for a revision to the Municipality’s Land Use Plan Map, being Schedule “G” to the Municipality’s OP, to reflect an updated and mutually agreed-upon revised Hazard Land Overlay over a portion of the Subject Lands. The alteration to the boundary of the Hazard Land Overlay is limited to only the southern portion of the Subject Lands and altered by moving the limit only slightly northerly, as reflected in the revised mapping attached to the Minutes of Settlement.

6The terms of Settlement also provide for the creation of a “Special Policy Area 3” applicable to the Subject Lands. Special Policy Area 3 would permit residential uses subject to, inter alia, the completion of further and appropriate Environmental Impact Statement(s) (“EIS”) as well as Geotechnical Investigations and associated Assessment Report(s) (“GIS”), before any development is permitted.

7The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following materials and submissions:

i. The Minutes of Settlement as executed by the Parties with Attachments 1, 2, and 3 appended thereto (marked as Exhibit 1);

ii. The uncontested Affidavit evidence of Terrance Glover, a Registered Professional Planner qualified, without objection, to provide professional opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning, as contained in his Affidavit affirmed on February 4, 2026, along with exhibits appended thereto (marked as Exhibit 2);

iii. The uncontested Affidavit evidence of John Van Egmond, a Registered Professional Engineer qualified, without objection, to provide professional opinion evidence in the area of Geotechnical Engineering, as contained in his Affidavit affirmed on January 30, 2026, along with exhibits appended thereto (marked as Exhibit 3);

iv. The uncontested Affidavit evidence of Jeremy Bannon, Professional Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist and Certified Arborist qualified, without objection, to provide professional opinion evidence in the area of Arboriculture and Natural Heritage, as contained in his Affidavit affirmed on February 3, 2026, along with exhibits appended thereto (marked as Exhibit 4);

v. The uncontested oral evidence of Messrs. Glover, Van Egmond, and Bannon;

vi. Participant Statements filed with the Tribunal in the names of:

• Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (marked as Exhibit 5);
• Lorraine Reid (marked as Exhibit 6);

vii. the Parties’ oral submissions in support of the Settlement;

viii. a draft OPA jointly submitted to give effect to the relief sought; and,

ix. the underlying Municipal File containing, inter alia, all technical studies, updated reports, and agency comments.

Decision and order

8The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned Affidavit and oral evidence of Messrs. Glover, Van Egmond, and Bannon reflect revisions to the application before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.

9The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Messrs. Glover, Van Egmond, and Bannon and similarly makes findings that include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. The geotechnical engineering analysis by Egmond Associates Ltd. reflected in the updated “Geotechnical Opinion Letter” dated January 10, 2026, demonstrates that the southern portion of the Subject Lands proposed to be removed from the Natural Hazard boundary limits have been assessed through historical mapping, geological mapping, and slope stability analysis, and were determined to: (a) not constitute Hazard Lands, and (b) to be geotechnically capable of sustaining the development of structures safely.

b. The northern portion of lands that were initially proposed to be removed from the Natural Hazard area (as reflected in the drawing attached to the Geotechnical Opinion Letter of January 10, 2026) are no longer proposed to be removed and will instead be subject to the Special Policy Area 3 provisions.

c. No portion of the lands are proposed to be removed from the Natural Heritage overlay any longer; rather, the lands are now proposed to be subject to the Special Policy Area 3 provisions. In other words, the Settlement does not modify or reduce the established Natural Heritage area on the Subject Lands, rather it permits the consideration of future residential development with the appropriate and requisite studies per the Special Policy Area 3 provisions.

d. An EIS was completed by Jeremy Bannon c/o Natural Resource Solutions Inc. in 2018 in respect of a proposed single residential development at that time which was subsequently approved by the Municipality. Additional ecological surveys, tree inventories and accompanying reports to support potential future development on the Subject Lands were completed in 2024 and 2025 along with a further EIS dated November 6, 2025, in connection with these proceedings. The 2025 EIS concludes, inter alia, that the proposed revision to the Natural Hazard overlay and the creation of a Special Policy Area 3 do not conflict with its findings.

e. The proposed Special Policy Area 3 maintains and protects the integrity and ecological function of the Natural Heritage Area by requiring any future development to be subject to detailed and supporting studies demonstrating, inter alia, the extent of any Natural Heritage features, and that the development is appropriate and will not negatively impact the Natural Heritage features or ecological functions.

f. The proposed Special Policy Area 3 respects the legislative intent and purpose of both County and local Natural Hazard policies by requiring any future development to be subject to the completion of required geotechnical investigations, assessments, and studies demonstrating, inter alia, the delineation of the extent of any Natural Hazard features, that the development does not encroach an area deemed an unacceptable risk to public health and safety or of property damage, and does not create any new hazards, nor aggravate existing hazards.

g. The proposed Special Policy Area 3 further respects the legislative intent and purpose of both Natural Hazard and Natural Heritage County and local planning policies by requiring any future development to be subject to a development agreement with the Municipality to ensure any mitigation measures identified in an EIS and/or GIS are implemented.

h. The concerns raised by the Participant Statements of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and Lorraine Reid, are addressed through the Special Policy Area 3 provisions requiring any future development to be subject to the completion of detailed investigations, studies, and reports in respect of both Natural Hazard and Natural Heritage features including requirements for additional supporting EIS and GIS reports.

i. The Kettle Creek Conservation Authority will continue to have the opportunity to review any potential future development application pursuant to its separate authority and process under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27.

j. Pursuant to the County’s 2015 Consolidated OP, the Subject Lands are located within the Tier 1 Settlement Area which is a focus of growth, generally with the largest populations in the County, and thereby with full municipal services.

k. Pursuant to the Municipality OP, the Subject Lands are located within the Built Area Limits and the Urban Settlement Area of Port Stanley which is also the focus of urban growth, and which have either full municipal services or are serviceable.

l. The Subject Lands front onto a road with full Municipal Services and thereby promotes the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure by promoting infill residential intensification.

m. The revised OPA is not proposing a settlement area expansion, rather it provides an opportunity for potential future development on the Subject Lands which would occur in an existing settlement area providing for an efficient use of land and optimization of existing municipal infrastructure and services.

n. The potential for future development would provide a modest level of intensification and contribute to the provision of housing.

o. The Subject Lands are currently zoned R1-69 Residential under the Village of Port Stanley By-law 1507 which permits, among other uses, single detached dwellings, home occupations and accessory uses, and is not zoned Natural Heritage under the By-law, therefore no future zoning amendment application would be required.

10The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Messrs. Glover, Van Egmond, and Bannon and similarly finds that the proposed OPA, as revised:

a. has regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular (but not limited to): s. 2(a) respecting the protection of ecological systems, s. 2(o) respecting the protection of public health and safety, and s. 2(p) respecting the appropriate location of growth and development;

b. is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and in particular (but not limited to): Chapter 2.3 respecting Settlement Areas, Chapter 4 respecting Use and Management of Resources, Chapter 4.1 respecting Natural Heritage, Chapter 5 respecting the protections of public health and safety, and 5.2 respecting Natural Hazards;

c. conforms to the County Official Plan, February 2015 Consolidated version being the County OP in effect at the time of the application submission and on the basis of the uncontested application of the Clergy Principle, and in particular (but not limited to): Part A4.2 respecting Natural Systems, Part B respecting Settlement Areas, Part D respecting Natural Heritage, Water and Natural Hazards, Part D respecting Natural Heritage, Part D1.2.6 respecting Development and Site Alteration, and Part D3 respecting Natural and Man-Made Hazards;

d. conforms to the Municipality OP, and in particular (but not limited to): s. 2.1.1 respecting Urban Settlement Areas, s. 2.6 respecting Natural Environment, and s. 3 respecting Environment including s. 3.1 on Natural Heritage and s. 3.2 on Natural Hazards; and,

e. otherwise reflects principles of good land use planning and is in the public interest.

11In summary, the Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands, being located within a designated Settlement Area with access to full municipal services, is an appropriate location for the proposed OPA which essentially permits the consideration of future potential residential development only where further and detailed supporting studies demonstrate adherence to legislative and planning policy requirements in respect of Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard features. The proposed Settlement is found to reflect good planning through a rules-based planning approval framework, that is in the public interest.

ORDER

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan for the Municipality of Central Elgin is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“N. Eisazadeh”

N. Eisazadeh 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

THE MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL ELGIN BY-LAW NO. XXXX

The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin, pursuant to Section 17(22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, hereby enacts as follows:

1. That Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan, consisting of the attached Schedules and Explanatory Text, is hereby adopted.

2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing thereof.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A - PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT NO. 7

1. Location
2. Purpose

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

1. Introductory Statement

2. Details of the Amendment Implementation and Interpretation

3. PART C - THE APPENDICES STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

PART A - THE PREAMBLE - does not constitute part of this Amendment.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT - consisting of the following text and schedule, designated Schedule "G", constitute Amendment No. 7 to the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan.

PART C - THE APPENDICES - do not constitute part of this Amendment. The appendices contain the background data, technical justification and public involvement associated with this Amendment.

Part A – Preamble

1. Location

The subject property is located along the north side of George Street, between Front Street and Sydenham Street in the former Village of Port Stanley. The property has a lot frontage of approximately 103.9 metres along George Street. The site is irregular in shape and measures approximately 10,424 square metres (1.04 hectares/2.57 acres) in area. The subject property is legally described as Part of Lot 5, North Side of George Street, West side of William Street, and Part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, North Side of George Street, Registered Plan 117 in the Municipality of Central Elgin, County of Elgin.

2. Purpose

The subject property is located within an Urban Settlement Area and the Built Area Limits of the Municipality of Central Elgin. It is designated a combination of ‘Residential’ and ‘Natural Heritage’ and ‘Natural Hazard Overlay’.

This amendment implements the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT Case No. OLT-25-000118) and associated minutes of settlement executed by the Municipality on February 4, 2026.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to reduce the extent of the existing Natural Hazard Overlay on the subject property to reflect recent updated field data and studies.

It is also the purpose of the proposed amendment to create a new Special Policy Area on the subject property that would permit residential uses to be considered within those portions of the property designated ‘Natural Heritage’ and ‘Natural Hazard’.

Part B – The Amendment

1. Introductory Statement

The entirety of Part B – The Amendment, including the following text and schedules mentioned, shall constitute Amendment No. X of the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan.

2. Details of the Amendment

The Official Plan is amended as follows:

Item 1: (Revision to Schedule ‘G’ of the Official Plan)

Schedule “G” to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Central Elgin – Community of Port Stanley Land Use Plan, is hereby amended by revising the ‘Natural Hazard Overlay boundary lines as described on attached Schedule “A” for the property known as 349 George Street in Port Stanley.

Item 2: (Special Policy Wording)

The “Special Policy Area – 349 George Street” related policy wording (attached as Schedule “B”), will be added to the Municipality of Central Elgin’s Official Plan as Section 4.7.6.12.

3. Implementation and Interpretation

The implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with all applicable policies of the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan

APPENDIX ‘A’

APPENDIX ‘B’

4.7.6.12 Special Policy Area – 349 George Street

Notwithstanding the permitted use policies of Subsection 3.1.1 a) of the Natural Heritage Designation, the lands numbered "Special Policy Area 3" and illustrated enclosed in heavy solid lines on Schedule "G" to this Plan may be used for residential purposes subject to the following:

a) Any proposed development shall be subject to the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Such EIS shall include a delineation of the extent of any natural heritage features on the site; identification of a building envelope appropriate for the size and scale of development proposed; and demonstrating that any proposed development will have no negative impacts on any identified natural features or their ecological functions, as required by the Provincial Planning Statement.

b) Any proposed development within the Natural Hazard Overlay illustrated on Schedule G shall be subject to the completion of appropriate geotechnical investigations, that may include a geotechnical assessment and / or slope stability study. Such study(s) shall include a delineation of the extent of any Natural Hazard features on the site identification of a building envelope and ingress/egress appropriate for the size and scale of development proposed; and demonstrating that any proposed building footprint will not be within an area that is deemed an unacceptable risk to public health and safety or of property damage, and does not create any new hazards or aggravate existing hazards. Notwithstanding the above, should it demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Municipality that the subject lands do not constitute a natural hazard, the Natural Hazard Overlay shall not apply to those relevant portions of the lands.

c) Any proposed development shall be subject to a development agreement with the Municipality to ensure any mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment and / or geotechnical investigations are implemented.