De Koster v. Central Elgin (Town), 2026 CanLII 33047

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 9, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000743

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Lauren De Koster and Jonathan De Koster

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a Wedding/Event Venue in a rural area as an Agri-tourism use

Reference Number: Y2-05-21

Property Address: 5277 Quaker Road

Municipality/UT: Central Elgin/County of Elgin

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000743

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000743

OLT Case Name: De Koster v. Central Elgin (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Lauren De Koster and Jonathan De Koster

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

Description: To permit a Wedding/Event Venue in a rural area as an Agri-tourism use

Reference Number: Y2-05-21

Property Address: 5277 Quaker Road

Municipality/UT: Central Elgin/County of Elgin

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000744

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000743

Heard: March 3, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Lauren De Koster and Jonathan De Koster	J. White
Municipality of Central Elgin	A. Baroudi

DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is an appeal by Lauren and Jonathan De Koster (“Applicant”) pursuant to subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), based on the refusal by the Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”) to approve applications to permit a non-agricultural use (“Applications”), being a rural wedding/event venue use, on lands known municipally as 5277 Quaker Road (“Site”), in the Municipality.

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL

2The Site is approximately 1.98 hectares in size and is located within an agricultural area of the Municipality. The lands are developed with a single detached dwelling.

3The property previously accommodated an artisan retail use known as “Winter Wheat,” which operated for a number of years before ceasing operations in or around 2020. Following that time, the owners began hosting a limited number of weddings and events on the property under temporary permissions. The continuation of this activity on an ongoing basis is not permitted under the current planning framework.

4The applications before the Tribunal seek to amend the Official Plan (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) to permit a seasonal rural wedding and event venue on the Site. The proposed use consists of outdoor event areas and accessory structures, including a seasonal tent for receptions, small ancillary buildings, and on-site parking. The operation would rely on third-party vendors for catering and related services, with no on-site food preparation facilities.

5The proposed use is limited in scale and includes restrictions on the number of events per year, the months of operation, and the maximum number of attendees per event. Final site design and layout would be subject to a future site plan control process.

SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

6The site is located on the west side of Quaker Road (County Road 36), approximately 200 metres south of Roberts Line and approximately 2 kilometres south of the Village of Sparta. The site has approximately 80.5 metres of frontage with a single access point.

7The site contains a single detached dwelling and several accessory structures, along with areas of mature tree cover. No active agricultural use is occurring on the Site.

8The surrounding area is characterized predominantly by agricultural uses, including large farm parcels in all directions. These lands include cultivated fields and, in some cases, buildings associated with agricultural operations. Rural residential dwellings are also present along Quaker Road and Roberts Line.

9Other nearby uses include an animal boarding or kennel facility and a bin rental business. The broader area reflects a rural landscape consisting of agricultural lands, rural residential uses, natural features, and limited non-agricultural uses.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10In making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as the instruments must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). With respect to the proposed OPA, the Tribunal must consider whether the amendment conforms to the applicable Official Plans and has regard to their intent. With respect to the proposed ZBA, the Tribunal must determine whether the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, as modified.

11Further, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the proposed instruments represent good planning and are in the public interest.

12The site is located within a Prime Agricultural Area under the PPS. Under the Elgin County Official Plan (“County OP”), the lands are designated Agricultural Area, and under the Central Elgin Official Plan (“CEOP”), they are designated Agricultural. The site is zoned Open Space (OS1) under the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998.

Positions of the Parties and Participant

13The Municipality was a Party to the proceeding and was represented by counsel at the hearing. The Municipality did not call evidence, make submissions, or participate in cross-examination.

14The Corporation of the County of Elgin (“County”) participated in the proceeding as a Participant. The County is the approval authority for official plan amendments within the County and has jurisdiction over Quaker Road, which abuts the Site. The County provided a Participant Statement, in which it raised concerns respecting the adequacy of the proposed servicing for the site. In particular, the County questioned whether the proposed approach to water supply and sewage disposal would meet applicable provincial policy requirements, including whether the services would be appropriately provided on-site and suitable for the long term. The County submitted that additional technical evidence would be required to demonstrate that the proposed servicing is consistent with the applicable policy framework. The County further indicated that, if the appeal were to be allowed, conditions should be imposed to ensure that appropriate servicing is confirmed prior to the use being established.

15The Tribunal heard land use planning evidence on behalf of the Applicant from Michael Davis (Exhibit 1). Based on the evidence and submissions before the Tribunal, the following issues arise for determination:

1. The nature of the proposed use within a Prime Agricultural Area;

2. The adequacy of servicing and the suitability of the site for the proposed use; and

3. The appropriateness of on-site parking.

Each issue is addressed in turn.

Nature of the Use within a Prime Agricultural Area

16Mr. Davis testified that the proposed Rural Wedding and Event Venue does not constitute an agricultural use, an agriculture-related use, or an on-farm diversified use as contemplated by the PPS. He indicated that the proposal is to be considered as a non-agricultural use within a Prime Agricultural Area and assessed under the criteria set out in Policy 4.3.5.

4.3.5:b) limited non-residential uses, provided that all of the following are demonstrated:

1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation formulae;

3. there is an identified need within the planning horizon identified in the official plan as provided for in policy 2.1.3 for additional land to accommodate the proposed use; and

4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and

i.there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

ii.there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands.

17Mr. Davis testified that the site does not comprise a specialty crop area and that the proposal complies with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae, based on calculations prepared for surrounding livestock facilities.

18With respect to need, Mr. Davis relied on policies of the County OP, including Section 5.15, which contemplates certain agri-tourism and rural-based uses, including special event venues, on a site-specific basis. He expressed the opinion that these policies recognize a need and role for such uses within the planning horizon.

5.15 Other Agri-tourism Operations: in some cases, agri-tourism operations may not have a direct relationship to a farm operation or agriculture but may still be complementary to farming or rural character. These uses include farmers markets, antique markets, bed and breakfasts, and outfitters for hunting, fishing, and camping. They may also include spas, retreats, outdoor recreational uses, and special event venues whose programming is based around rural character and/or rural activities. These uses may be permitted on a case-by-case basis in the Rural Area.

19On the question of alternative locations, Mr. Davis testified that the nature of the proposed use is tied to a rural setting and cannot be replicated within an urban settlement area. He further indicated that, within the Municipality, lands outside settlement areas are designated as Prime Agricultural, such that avoidance of such lands is not feasible. He also expressed the opinion that the site represents lower priority agricultural land, having regard to its size, existing conditions (including the Site being heavily treed), and historical use.

20Mr. Davis also reviewed the applicable policy framework of the County OP and the CEOP. He testified that while the CEOP does not expressly provide for this type of use within the Agricultural designation, the proposal is advanced by way of an official plan amendment. In his opinion, the proposal maintains the general intent of the Agricultural designation, as it does not remove active agricultural land from production, complies with separation requirements, and includes limitations intended to minimize impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

Servicing and Suitability of the Site

21Mr. Davis testified that the proposed use is intended to be serviced by private on-site water and wastewater systems, consistent with the policy framework applicable to rural areas where municipal services are not available.

22He referred to Policy 3.6.4 of the PPS, which permits individual on-site services where site conditions are suitable, and no negative impacts are anticipated. In support of this, he relied on a septic feasibility report prepared by Stonecairn Consulting Inc., dated December 16, 2024, which evaluated subsurface conditions and projected servicing requirements for the proposed use. Based on that report, he testified that the Site is capable of accommodating an appropriate on-site septic system and that no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated, subject to standard design and setback requirements.

23Mr. Davis indicated that the property is served by an existing well and that this has historically supported the dwelling and event-related activities. He testified that he relied on the conclusions of the servicing report in forming his planning opinion regarding consistency with the applicable policy framework.

24He further opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA do not prescribe a specific servicing design and do not limit the Municipality’s ability to require further studies or approvals. In his opinion, the detailed design and verification of servicing would appropriately be addressed through the Site Plan Control process, at which stage the Municipality would retain full authority to require additional technical review and to ensure compliance with applicable standards.

25Mr. Davis also referenced the servicing policies of the County’s OP and the CEOP, noting that these policies similarly permit development on private on-site systems in rural areas, subject to confirmation of suitability. He expressed the opinion that these policy requirements are met based on the available information and that further refinement would occur through subsequent approvals.

On-Site Parking

26Mr. Davis testified that the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law does not contain parking standards applicable to the proposed use or comparable assembly-type uses and therefore provides limited guidance in establishing an appropriate parking rate.

27In response, he undertook a review of comparable rural event venues in Ontario to establish an appropriate parking standard. He described this as a proxy site analysis, focusing on uses of a similar scale and function located in rural or agricultural settings. Based on this review, he identified a range of parking rates and applied an average rate of one parking space per 2.8 guests.

28Mr. Davis testified that, based on a maximum occupancy of 200 guests, the proposed zoning would require approximately 72 on-site parking spaces. He indicated that the conceptual site plan demonstrates that this supply could be accommodated on the site. Further, he provided evidence that in addition to the parking being provided on site, the owners incorporate messaging to clients that encourages the use of shuttle services, coordinated transportation arrangements, and carpooling by attendees.

29In his opinion, the proposed zoning provisions establish an appropriate parking framework for the use and address potential impacts of spillover onto the surrounding road network.

30In conclusion, Mr. Davis testified that the proposed amendments are consistent with the PPS 2024, conform to the County OP and maintain the intent of the CEOP. He further stated that the ZBA would conform upon approval of the OPA, and that it represents good land use planning.

FINDINGS

31The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the Applicant’s land use planning witness, the participant submission of the County, and the applicable legislative and policy framework.

32With respect to the nature of the use, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Davis that the proposed Rural Wedding and Event Venue does not constitute an agricultural use, an agriculture-related use, or an on-farm diversified use within the meaning of the PPS. The proposal is appropriately assessed as a non-agricultural use within a Prime Agricultural Area under Policy 4.3.5.

33The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed use is limited in scale and scope. The proposed zoning framework includes restrictions on the number of events, seasonal operation, maximum occupancy, and lot coverage, which collectively serve to limit the intensity of the use. The evidence also demonstrates that the proposal complies with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae and is not anticipated to result in land use conflicts with surrounding agricultural operations.

34The Tribunal also accepts that the site does not comprise a specialty crop area and that, within the context of the Municipality, there are limited opportunities to locate such a use outside of lands designated as Prime Agricultural. The County OP contemplates certain agri-tourism and rural-based uses, including event-based uses, on a site-specific basis. As such, the Tribunal concurs with Mr. Davis that the proposal meets the criterion set in PPS policy 4.3.5.

35With respect to the CEOP, the Tribunal recognizes that the proposed use is not expressly permitted within the Agricultural designation and is not an on-farm diversified use. However, the proposal is advanced by way of an OPA. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Agricultural designation, as it does not remove active agricultural land from production, complies with Minimum Distance Separation requirements, and includes limitations intended to minimize impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

36The Tribunal also notes that the proposed use has operated on a limited basis in recent years under temporary permissions. While this does not determine the planning merits of the application, it provides some context with respect to the scale and nature of the use.

37With respect to servicing, the Tribunal acknowledges that this was a central issue in the proceeding. The evidence before the Tribunal includes a septic feasibility report prepared by Stonecairn Consulting Inc., which evaluated subsurface conditions and the capacity of the site to accommodate private on-site servicing. Mr. Davis relied on that report and testified that, in his opinion, the site is suitable for the provision of on-site water and wastewater services and that such services can be accommodated without negative impacts.

38The Tribunal accepts that the PPS requires that individual on-site services only be used where site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. The Tribunal also acknowledges the concerns raised by the County regarding the adequacy and long-term viability of the proposed servicing approach.

39In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence establishes a reasonable basis to conclude that appropriate servicing may be achieved on the site. The feasibility of a permanent on-site system has been assessed through a technical study, and the site is already serviced by an existing well.

40The Tribunal is not, however, making a final determination with respect to the detailed design or ultimate suitability of any specific servicing solution. Those matters are appropriately addressed through the Site Plan Control process, where the Municipality retains full authority to require additional studies, peer review, and confirmation that servicing can be provided in accordance with applicable policies and standards. On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that the servicing considerations do not preclude approval of the proposed planning instruments.

41With respect to parking, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Davis that the applicable Zoning By-law does not provide a parking standard for the proposed use or comparable assembly-type uses. The Tribunal further accepts his approach of reviewing comparable rural event venues to establish an appropriate parking rate.

42The proposed zoning requires parking at a rate of one space per 2.8 guests, which results in a requirement for 72 parking spaces based on the maximum permitted occupancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that this approach is reasonable and that the proposed parking appropriately addresses the need to accommodate on-site demand and avoid spillover onto adjacent roads.

43The Tribunal acknowledges the County’s request that conditions be imposed to ensure that appropriate servicing is confirmed prior to development proceeding. However, the Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence before it, that the proposed development can be adequately serviced. The remaining servicing considerations relate to detailed design and implementation matters, which are appropriately addressed through the Municipality’s site plan approval process, including review by the County, as appropriate. In this context, the Tribunal finds that the imposition of a condition is not necessary.

44For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conform with the applicable Official Plans, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, and that the Official Plan of the Municipality of Central Elgin is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Zoning By-law 1998 of the Township of Yarmouth is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

“J. Innis”

J. INNIS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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