Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 25, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000660
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Thornbury Acres Holding Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit a 37-unit residential farm co-operative
Reference Number: P3266
Property Address: Concession 8, Part Lot 27, 16R-11537, Parts 2 and 3; Concession 8, East Part Lot 27
Municipality/UT: Town of Blue Mountains / County of Grey
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000660
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000660
OLT Case Name: Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Thornbury Acres Holding Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 37-unit residential farm co-operative
Reference Number: P3266
Property Address: Concession 8, Part Lot 27, 16R-11537, Parts 2 and 3; Concession 8, East Part Lot 27
Municipality/UT: Town of Blue Mountains / County of Grey
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000661
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000660
Heard: July 07, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. | Paul DeMelo |
| Town of the Blue Mountains | Denise Baker |
DECISION DELIVERED BY Sharyn Vincent AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. proposes to develop a multi-phase, 31-unit, residential farm cooperative as an “innovative form of rural land use”, pursuant to the existing County of Grey Official Plan policy encouraging the same land use as the quoted language. The Town of The Blue Mountain’s Official Plan does not include the same language or policy, but all Parties agree, that it is appropriate to amend the Town of The Blue Mountain’s Official Plan to bring it in line with the County of Grey Official Plan and to consider in Phase 1 of the hearing, the principle of the land use for the subject lands.
2The only opposition proffered to the Tribunal challenged “the proportion and scale” of the proposed co-operative.
3There is no disagreement between the witnesses put forward by the Parties that there is no definition as to what constitutes a residential farm cooperative, and similarly the witnesses agree that the only policy to guide the resolution of the dispute at hand is section 5.4.1.3 of the County of Grey Official Plan, which directs the reader of the plan to Policy 5.4.2 of the County of Grey Official Plan.
4Policy 5.4.2 of the County of Grey Official Plan, in subsection 5.4.2.8)a), addresses the issue of proportion by stating that:
a minimum of 60% of the original land holding will remain available for the active primary agricultural or recreational use [emphasis added]
5The witnesses disagree in their respective interpretations of how the word ‘or’ is meant to be understood, and therefore, how the 60% is to be determined.
6The witness for Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. submits that the word is meant to be inclusive (i.e. one and/or the other), whereas the witness for the Town of The Blue Mountains submits that the ‘or’ is meant to be exclusionary, meaning one or the other.
7Over the course of the hearing, the position of the Town of The Blue Mountains expanded to include concerns about species at risk potentially relying upon the water feature. Although not part of the approved issues list, Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. lead evidence to satisfactorily address these concerns. In this phase of a two-phase hearing.
8The Tribunal, having considered the evidence of the respective planner and transportation planner put forth by each Party, has determined that the simple reading of the language in the County of Grey Official Plan is meant to be read as inclusionary, therefore allowing either, and that 60 % can be derived from a combination of both within the relative range of 60%.
9The application before the Tribunal for consideration proposes a combination of approximately 65% open space/recreational and agricultural.
FINDINGS
10The Tribunal has come to its determination on the following basis.
11The Official Plan of the County of Grey specifically sets out the goal of encouraging innovative forms of rural development [emphasis added] and the Parties agree that:
(i) Town of The Blue Mountains Official Plan should be amended to align with the in force County of Grey Official Plan. The Tribunal agrees.
(ii) The concept, as proposed by Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. presents an opportunity to implement and ultimately achieve the County of Grey Official Plan policy. The Tribunal agrees.
(iii) In the preliminary hearing events, the Parties were directed to prepare for a phased hearing; Phase 1 being the determination of whether the proposed land use as a residential co-operative is an appropriate use of the lands. Subsequent phases were to deal with the implementation strategies, wherein the specific requirements of the respective approval authorities were to be set out and acknowledged, unless otherwise contested.
(iv) Thornbury Acres Holding Inc. maintains that the objections and evidence of the Town of The Blue Mountains relate to the Phase 2 workplan and are therefore prematurely before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agrees.
ISSUE OF PROPORTION
12As set out in paragraph [8] above, the Town of The Blue Mountains has taken the position that the percentage provision cannot be determined as a cumulative total of recreational and residential, whereas Thornbury argues that no such restriction is clear on the face of the document, and that while perhaps the preference of the approval authority, the in force documents do not provide a definitive interpretation.
13In coming to their respective positions, the Parties rely upon the following.
Town of The Blue Mountains
14The planning witness for the Town of The Blue Mountains relied upon the definition of “residential farm cooperative” and other clarifications introduced in Amendment 23 to the County of Grey Official Plan (approved April 10, 2025), which the witness advised the Tribunal is not determinative as the matter under appeal predated the amendment.
15The Tribunal is of the view that, while perhaps demonstrative of the Town of The Blue Mountains Council’s quest for clarity in potential future applications, the fact remains that the underlying land use of a residential farm cooperative continues to be promoted by Official Plan policies as an innovative way of diversifying rural economies. To implement this concept the cooperative will create units within a Vacant Land Draft Plan of Condominium, meaning the lands will remain as one parcel on title.
Thornbury Acres Holding Inc.
16With reference to above, the proposal was conceived in 2022 with independent consulting advice, and subject of two pre-consultation meetings with the appropriate County of Grey staff, prior to the application being filed. The proposal was revised in response to the direction arising out of the meetings with County of Grey staff. These directions form part of the public record.
17The County of Grey did not participate in any capacity before the Tribunal.
ORDER
18The Tribunal grants the appeal and orders the following amendments, as set out in the Attachments to, and forming part of this Decision, be brought into force and effect:
Amendment to Official Plan of the Town of The Blue Mountains; and
Amendment to the Town of the Blue Mountains Zoning By-law.
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN VINCENT
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2