Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 16, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000745
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Lou Laventure
Appellant (Jointly): Linda Laventure
Appellant (Jointly): Lance Laventure
Appellant (Jointly): Kayla Laventure
Subject: Consent
Description: Consent to sever additional dwelling unit from farm property
Reference Number: B45/25
Property Address: 442 Milton Stewart Avenue
Municipality/UT: McNab/Braeside/Renfrew
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000745
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000745
OLT Case Name: Laventure v. Renfrew (County)
Heard: January 29, 30, February 3, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lou Laventure, Linda Laventure, Lance Laventure and Kayla (Couture) Laventure ("Applicant/Appellant")
Bath-Shéba van den Berg
County of Renfrew ("County")
Emma Blanchard
DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Order
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal is regarding an appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act ("Act") in response to the refusal by the County of an application to sever an additional dwelling from the property municipally known as 442-552 Milton Stewart Avenue in the Township of McNab/Braeside ("Subject Lands"). The County’s refusal decision was issued on September 15, 2025. The Township of McNab/Braeside did not participate in these proceedings.
2The Subject Lands are approximately 40 hectares ("ha") in size with over 630 metres ("m") of frontage on a municipal road. It has accessory buildings, a primary residence that was constructed in 2014 and an additional dwelling that was constructed in 2022 following the approval of a minor variance application, which permitted its construction as an additional dwelling unit. The approved minor variance included a provision prohibiting any future severance of this dwelling unit from the property.
3The Subject Lands have been designated Agriculture in the County of Renfrew Official Plan ("COP") since 1997, and a portion is designated Environmental Protection due to the presence of a creek. The same designations are reflected in the Zoning By-Law 2025-54 ("ZBL") of the Township of McNab/Braeside.
4The Application for Consent proposed to sever the existing additional dwelling unit ("ADU") from the Subject Lands and create a new lot ("Severed Lot"). The Severed Lot would have a total area of 2.02 ha and 152.4 m frontage leaving the retained property with 38.44 ha area and 483.72 m frontage ("Retained Lands").
5The County’s Notice of Decision indicated that the consent was refused as the request to sever an additional dwelling unit from lands designated and zoned as agriculture is not consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement ("PPS 2024"), does not conform with the COP and does not meet the requirements of the Act.
6These proceedings were originally scheduled for two days by video beginning on January 29, 2026, but required the addition of a third date, February 3, 2026, to hear oral closing arguments. On consent of the Parties, written copies of opening and closing submissions were provided to the Tribunal by February 9, 2026.
PARTY POSITIONS
7Briefly summarized, the Appellant said that agricultural land should be protected but, in this instance, submits that the Consent application should be granted by the Tribunal. The Appellant submits that the decision to refuse the consent application was made "without evidence, analysis, and without reasons" and lacked procedural fairness. The Appellant contends that the basis for the refusal does not consider "site-specific constraints" and lacks detailed assessment and analysis of the Subject Lands such as soil quality, current/historical use, and impact on agricultural objectives which is necessary to determine whether the consent is consistent with the PPS 2024 or does not conform with the COP. The Appellant takes issue with the County Planner’s report as the basis for the refusal decision. Specifically, the Appellant contends that the reference to "prime agricultural" is not supported by any appropriate assessment and should not have been used. The Appellant submits that the Planner’s reference to a previous minor variance approval condition prohibiting any future severance for the Subject Lands was inappropriate as current provincial planning policies must be applied.
8The County submits that the proposed Consent should be denied as it does not meet any of the statutory requirements of the Act, it is not good land use planning and is not in the public’s interest. Briefly summarized, the County maintains that the proposed Consent does not have regard for the protection of "agricultural resources in the province" as per Section 2 of the Act and is not consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS 2024 which protect agricultural resources by "restrict[ing]" and/or "prohibit[ing]" lot creation in prime agricultural areas. Counsel contends that the proposed consent creates an opportunity for ‘non-agricultural’ use that could result in negatively impacting existing agricultural uses. The County also argues that the proposed consent is prohibited by the COP General Development Policies for all lands in the County as well as the policies specifically applicable to lands designated for agriculture. Counsel maintains that the land use planning witnesses to these proceedings agree that the designation of agriculture in the COP means it has been identified as a "prime agricultural area" and the designation cannot be changed in the context of a consent application.
FINDING
9The Tribunal has considered the oral and documented evidence provided, the submissions from counsel, and has had regard for the materials provided by the Appellant and the municipality. The Tribunal, for the reasons set out in the Decision below, denies the consent application/appeal.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Appellant Witness
10Counsel for the Appellant requested that Robert Clark, Principal Planner of Clark Consulting Services, be permitted to provide evidence related to this appeal. Counsel indicated that it was difficult to find an expert and only received a response on January 23, 2026, where Mr. Clark agreed to provide a "desktop letter of opinion" regarding the consent application.
11Counsel for the County expressed concern with the late disclosure, as the County has sought confirmation regarding the Appellant’s witness intentions since October 2025, so that the County would have an opportunity to prepare its case. The County submitted that it could support this request if Mr. Clark’s testimony was as a land use planner and restricted to the "desktop letter of opinion."
12The Tribunal granted permission for Robert Clark to provide expert opinion evidence during these proceedings with the consent of both Parties. The Parties agreed that the testimony would be limited to the content of Mr. Clark’s letter and to his qualifications as a land use planner.
Participant Status Request
13The Tribunal received a participant status request from Jeffrey Bogaerts, a representative of the Ontario Landowners Association. Mr. Bogaerts indicated that the Landowner’s Association is not incorporated and submitted that the application could be received by the Tribunal in his own name. The application letter indicated his participation would be limited to "legislative and policy framework governing severance applications on agricultural lands", "procedural obligations imposed on municipalities, proper interpretation and application of provincial land use policy, and systemic procedural issues that arise."
14The Tribunal, having considered the written participant application and oral submissions from the applicant and from both Parties, denied the participant status request.
15The Tribunal finds that while the information provided by the applicant is relevant in a broad sense, it is not helpful to the Tribunal in adjudicating the site-specific merits of this appeal. The applicant indicated that he "does not represent the appellant, does not advance the factual findings regarding the subject property, and does not advocate for the approval or refusal of the severance application." The applicant has also not participated in the public process regarding this matter, nor does he live in the area of the Subject Lands.
County Witness – Voir Dire
16Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received notice from the Appellant regarding admissibility issues with respect to the County’s planning witness (Bruce Howarth, Manager of Planning for the County of Renfrew). In response, the Tribunal requested a submission from the County regarding this concern and a reply statement from the Appellant. After considering these submissions, the Parties were directed by the Tribunal that it would determine this matter at the hearing itself based on the email submissions along, with any additional oral arguments provided.
17At the beginning of Day 2 of these proceedings, Mr. Howarth was asked to leave the video hearing prior to the Tribunal hearing arguments regarding procedural matters related to the status of this witness. The Appellant requested that arguments regarding Mr. Howarth’s witness status be heard within a voir dire and argued it is an "admissibility issue not simply going to the weight of his testimony." The appellant also said that he should be qualified as a ‘fact’ witness as he could not be independent or impartial as an employee of the County.
18The County did not agree and argued that the Tribunal should follow its normal practice of having the witness provide their oath, review their qualifications and proposed information regarding their area of expertise at which time the opposing party would have an opportunity to pose questions regarding qualifications and possibly challenge the scope of expertise. Counsel for the County said that case law supports the position that "the employment relationship is not a sufficient basis for finding that the witness lacks testimonial independence or is biased" (Ontario v. South Bruce Peninsula, 2022 ONCA 315 at para 81).
19The Tribunal granted the voir dire request given the potential issues raised by the Appellant and to ensure confidence in the testimony of the witness as he has been involved throughout the consent application and appeal process. The Tribunal also found that there would be no negative impact on the fairness and efficiency of these proceedings and that this approach was granted on a ‘case specific’ basis.
20The Tribunal recalled Mr. Howarth and informed him that the hearing was being paused to conduct a voir dire to determine his witness status prior to proceeding with the hearing and he was then sworn in.
21The County, in support of Mr. Howarth being qualified as an expert witness in land use planning, reviewed his professional qualifications, employment experience and the process he followed throughout this consent application and appeal.
22Mr. Howarth said that he has a bachelor’s degree in urban and regional planning and started his career as a planning technician for a school board. In 2007, he became a senior planner for the County of Renfrew Development and Property Department, which involved managing planning approvals and supporting 17 local municipalities in planning related matters. Since 2021, he has been the Manager of Planning for the County and works with a team of planners to provide planning services to the County and other municipalities and has been qualified as an expert witness in land use planning approximately 30 times before the Tribunal.
23Mr. Howarth said that he is a Registered Professional Planner and maintains professional memberships with the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. These organizations have established standards of practice and require ongoing professional development that he is obligated to complete in his professional practice. He also reviewed and signed the "Expert Duty Form" required by the Tribunal for these proceedings requiring him to fulfill a duty to the Tribunal over and above any duty to a party.
24Mr. Howarth said that he followed the standard practice of managing a consent application for this instance. He outlined the process as initially determining the type of application and then confirming its completeness. Once deemed complete, it is sent to other agencies for comment and public notice is provided. He indicated that comments are then collected and then a report is prepared for the committee that provides a recommendation based on how the application "fits with the Planning Act or other policy documents."
25Mr. Howarth indicated that the report represented his own professional opinion on the merits of the application, which was then shared with the Land Division Committee on the date it was submitted and has not changed. He confirmed that he did not communicate with any members of the Committee prior to submitting the report, and other than during the public meeting itself, has not communicated with members of the Land Division Committee or to anyone at the County regarding the merits of this application.
26Mr. Howarth indicated that in an instance where the Committee decides against his planning recommendation and the decision is appealed, the County hires an outside planner as he would not be able to provide planning evidence against the recommendation he provided.
27Under cross-examination, Mr. Howarth indicated that he completed the Municipal Submission Form as part of his regular duties and indicated, based on Council direction, who the County would use as their representative and indicated that the County would have one planning witness. He indicated that he fulfills a management role while also providing independent planning advice to the County, which they often accept and on occasion, do not. He said that he has been summoned on occasion to testify for an appellant based on the planning report provided to the Committee.
28The Tribunal, having considered Mr. Howarth’s testimony under oath and the written and oral submissions of the Parties, qualified him to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
29The Tribunal concurs with the Counsel for the County, that there is no indication of a lack of professional independence or bias with this witness. The Tribunal finds paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Supreme Court of Canada’s White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 SCR 182 decision helpful in considering this issue. There was no indication that the "expert is unable and/or unwilling to comply with [their] duty" and the decision goes on to say that "in most cases, a mere employment relationship with the party calling the evidence will be insufficient to [render the evidence of the proposed expert evidence inadmissible.]"
30The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Howarth followed standard procedures in carrying out his duties as manager and professional planner and was not influenced by others in determining his recommendation. His evidence is based on the same planning report he submitted to the Committee and has not changed since the launch of this appeal. His independence is further confirmed through his submission of the signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form required by the Tribunal.
31The Tribunal found the four-part test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Mohan 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9 helpful in determining this matter. Mr. Howarth is a "properly qualified expert" as a professional planner who is obligated to uphold professional standards and ongoing learning with two professional organizations. His testimony is necessary and relevant in assisting the Tribunal to understand and consider the various applicable planning documents and there is no exclusionary rule that would prohibit him from testifying as an expert in land use planning.
THE HEARING
EXHIBITS
32In addition to oral submissions of counsel, the testimony of witnesses and the materials provided by the municipality, the following exhibits were relied upon as evidence in these proceedings:
- Exhibit 1: Appellant Appeal Record
- Exhibit 2: Appellant Supplemental Appeal Record
- Exhibit 3: County Book of Documents dated January 19
- Exhibit 4: County Supplemental Book of Documents, January 27
- Exhibit 5: Complete Schedule A Map, County Official Plan
- Exhibit 6: Complete Schedule B Map, Laurentian Valley- County Official Plan
33A copy of the Parcel Register Pin: 57336-0109 was marked as Exhibit A and provided for information and was not used as evidence.
Legislative Framework
Consent to Sever – s.53(19) of the Planning Act
34The Consent application requires an analysis of the following considerations:
I. The threshold question in accordance with s. 53(1) of the Planning Act ("Act") that the Tribunal be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality and the matter can proceed by way of application for Consent;
II. Under s. 53(12), the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act which include, inter alia: that the proposed Consent has regard to the effect that the Consent will have on matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act; whether the proposed Consent is premature or in the public interest; whether the Consent conforms to the COP; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot; and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
III. As required by s. 3(5) of the Act, be satisfied that the approval of the proposed Consent is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 ("PPS");
IV. Has regard been had to the decision of the approval authority relating to the Consent application that is before the Tribunal and the information and material that was before the approval authority in making the decision;
V. Under s. 53(12), consider and impose such conditions as may be determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed Consent, and such conditions may include such requirements as are set out in s. 51(25) of the Act; and
VI. Whether the giving of provisional Consent to the Applicant, with any required conditions, represents good planning in the public interest.
WITNESSES
35The Tribunal qualified the following witnesses to provide evidence:
For the Appellant:
- Lou Laventure – property owner and sworn in as a fact witness.
- Robert Clark – Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, Ontario Professional Planners Institute, Ontario Institute of Agrologists – was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning with a specialization in agrology.
For the Town:
- Bruce Howarth – Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, Ontario Professional Planners Institute, Manager of Planning County of Renfrew – was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
EVIDENCE / ANALYSIS / FINDINGS
Evidence – Lou Laventure
36Lou Laventure provided an overview of his family’s "proud" farming history in the area, current use of the Subject Lands, and rationale in support of the consent application based on soil quality, current and future farm sustainability, and the financial needs of his family.
37Mr. Laventure said that he has owned the Subject Lands for twenty years and the family has owned it for over one hundred years. His family owns several plots of land in the area and indicated that the subject lands are the least tillable of them all. It is his estimation that about 10% of the land is tillable. Mr. Laventure indicated that the productivity of the lands is limited due to wetlands on the property that include swamp land and two creeks.
38Regarding the proposed severance parcel, he contends that the combination of wetlands and resulting steep slopes around that area makes it unusable for agriculture and that this plot should be designated as ‘rural’ with the same permitted uses as other land with that designation.
39Mr. Laventure said that he is confident, given his lifetime of farming experience and his completion of an Agricultural Engineering Certificate, that the proposed severed plot is not useable for agriculture.
40Mr. Laventure said that his son and family currently live in the additional dwelling and are unable to apply for a mortgage as the house is not a separate parcel from the entire farm. He indicated that for his son to be financially independent and the financial viability to "buy into" the farming operation, he needs to be able to raise his own financial capital and cannot as long as the additional dwelling is part of the larger property.
41Mr. Laventure said that the consent application process and approval decision was flawed as the County did not provide any evidence on how they deemed the land "prime agricultural" while historically it has been deemed "agriculture."
42Under cross-examination, Mr. Laventure indicated that he was aware that the Subject lands were designated as "agriculture" in both the COP and the ZBL and that he attended the Committee of Adjustment meeting where the additional dwelling was approved with a condition not to sever. He indicated that he did not agree with this condition and felt "bullied" into accepting it.
Planning Evidence – Robert Clark
43There is agreement between the Planning witnesses that the Subject Lands are deemed "prime agricultural" in the COP. The Planners are also consistent in their opinions that the appropriate steps to pursue the consent in this instance is first through an official plan amendment application and, if successful, initiate an application to sever the plot of land surrounding the additional dwelling.
44Mr. Clark’s "desktop letter of opinion" regarding the Subject Lands and proposed consent proffered the following:
- The proposed consent should follow the watercourse which effectively separates it from the remainder of the farm.
(Exhibit 2, pg. 13 – Alt. Consent Boundary) (Exhibit 3, pg. 6 - Proposed Consent)
The soil on most of the farm has a Soil Capacity Rating of Class 3 with "impermeability and fertility constraints" and the watercourse and the limitations it creates have not been included in the soils mapping.
The road restricts the size of the proposed consent which results in it not being large enough to qualify as a separate prime agricultural area. He also said that the existence of residential lots on the opposite side of the road impacts the agricultural uses permitted on the farm.
The land on the opposite side of the road is not designated as prime agricultural in the COP and "subject to an on-site confirmation" the prime agricultural area should follow the natural heritage limits which would result in the "designation of the proposed severed lands as Rural and… provide the basis for the proposed consent."
45Mr. Clark said that the current soil mapping was conducted in the 1960s and at the time natural features did not necessitate a different rating than the land surrounding it. Today’s approach considers watercourses and that area would be deemed Class 4 and would not qualify as a prime agricultural area.
46Mr. Clark opined that the process to have a consent application considered for the Subject Lands is to first pursue an official plan amendment with the County to change the land designation from "prime agriculture" to Rural. If granted, he recommended applying for a consent based on the "alternative boundary" (Exhibit 2, pg. 13) he provided which he said, "could be approved given the other housing across the street."
47Mr. Clark indicated that his testimony could only be confirmed through a site visit, and his opinion could change based on what is found at the site. He also acknowledged that his proposal is different from the Applicant/Appellant’s proposal.
Planning Evidence – Bruce Howarth
48Mr. Howarth opined that the consent application should be denied by the Tribunal as it is not in the public interest, is not consistent with the PPS 2024 and does not conform with the COP.
49Mr. Howarth reviewed the planning related history of the Subject Lands indicating that the proposed severance represents approximately 5 acres, there is an existing permitted residential use, and it is serviced by a private septic system, electricity, access to school busing and other municipal services. In 2022, the additional dwelling was constructed after a minor variance was granted with a condition restricting the severance of this dwelling from the Subject Lands in the future. His report indicates that the property has had an agricultural designation since 1997 (Exhibit 4, pg. 18).
50Mr. Howarth, under-cross examination, confirmed that these proceedings are a hearing de novo and that his recommendations are based on current planning policies. He said that the previous Minor Variance approval is not relevant to these proceedings and only provides historical context to the current uses of the Subject Lands.
51Mr. Howarth indicated that the proposed consent does not have regard to Section 2(b) of the Planning Act which identifies "the protection of the agricultural resources" as a provincial interest. He said that permitting a severance from the farm property does not protect agricultural resources but instead, creates the opportunity for a completely unrelated use and possibly a barrier to farming.
52Mr. Howarth described the PPS 2024 as a foundation document for regulating development in the province. He said that some policies are more enabling while others are more prohibitive and municipalities are expected to build on the planning base it provides. With respect to this case, Section 4.3 Agriculture provides the foundation for the COP policies related to agriculture.
53Mr. Howarth opined that the definition of "prime agricultural areas" in the PPS 2024 is the foundation for the "agricultural" designations in the COP. The definition indicates that prime agricultural areas include "prime agricultural lands" , lands with a Canada Land Inventory Class 4-7, and "additional areas with a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture." It also stated that "prime agricultural areas" may be defined by planning authorities and informed by mapping obtained from other ministries responsible for agriculture and/or rural affairs in the province. He explained that this is how the land designations were determined for the area of the Subject Lands.
54Mr. Howarth opined that Section 4.3 of PPS 2024 provides direction related to development in an agricultural area and demonstrates how the consent application is not consistent with it:
- General Policies – Section 4.3.1.2 – "all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected"
- Permitted Uses – Section 4.3.2.1 – agricultural uses shall be "compatible with,…not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on…municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives"
- Permitted Uses – Section 4.3.2.5 – Mr. Howarth proffered that these criteria were added to the PPS 2024 to ensure that prime agricultural land is not taken out of production and that its use remain compatible with agriculture. This section permits "up to two additional residential dwelling units shall be permitted…provided that…one…is located within or attached to the principal dwelling, and any additional residential unit." The section requires compliance with "minimum distance separation formulae", scale limitation and location close to the principal dwelling or "farm cluster."
- Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments - Section 4.3.3 – Mr. Howarth said that this section indicates that "lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged" and may only be permitted if they are "sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type and size of agricultural operations," which is a result of a consolidation due to a "residence surplus." Mr. Howarth indicated that the definition for dealing with a surplus residence on an agricultural property is also relevant here. It says that a residence may only be deemed surplus "as a result of a farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation)".
55Mr. Howarth opined that there is "clear direction in the PPS 2024" restricting or prohibiting new development on prime agricultural areas and said that the COP aligns with the intent of the provincial document. Mr. Howarth relied on Section 2 - General Policies and Section 6 – Lands Designated Agriculture in assessing the conformity of the consent application with the COP and determined that it does not conform.
56Mr. Howarth said that the consent application does not conform with the General Policies of the COP, as they prohibit the secondary dwelling unit from being severed from the primary dwelling. Specifically, Section 2.2.24.2.c requires secondary dwellings to share the same water and septic services as the primary dwelling unit on lots smaller than 2 hectares and may have their own for parcels larger than 2 hectares. Section 2.2.24.2.i says that a secondary dwelling on lands designated agricultural are to be near the primary dwelling so that it does not "sterilize agriculturally productive land or create conflict for adjacent farms." Section 14 indicates that consents for development in the agriculture designation shall satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 6.3 of the COP.
57Mr. Howarth’s opined that Section 6 - Agriculture confirms that "prime agricultural areas" are those areas identified by the Canada Land Inventory for Agriculture ("CLI") in classes 1-3 and that a severance is not permitted in this instance. He specifically referred to Section 6.3.4 which permits a secondary dwelling to accommodate "farm help who are assisting full-time in the farm’s operation" and says that "a severance will not be permitted for a second dwelling to accommodate farm help who are assisting full-time in the farm’s operation."
58Mr. Howarth also relied on Section 6.3.5 in determining that the consent does not conform with the COP. This policy provides further direction on the permitted uses, size, and surplus dwellings. Regarding size requirements of a consent, both parcels have to be retained and of an appropriate size for agricultural use. It also stipulates that all parcels be "sufficiently large enough to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operation, being generally not less than 40 hectares in size." To deem a dwelling surplus to the farm operation, it must be as a result of a consolidation, and "no new dwelling unit may be built on the retained parcel." This consent application is not a result of a farm consolidation.
59Mr. Howarth said that Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2010-49 for the Township of Mcnab/Braeside requires a lot area of 20 hectares in the "A" zone and the updated by-law 2025-54 increases the required lot size to 40 hectares in the "A" zone. The consent application if approved would create a lot size of 2 hectares.
60Under cross examination, Mr. Howarth confirmed his understanding that these proceedings are a hearing "de novo" and stated that he did not "look at farming operations" in forming a recommendation to the Planning committee. He indicated that his conclusions were based on a review of planning policies and their direction related to consents and in particular, agricultural lands as required in the planning statutes.
61Under re-examination, Mr. Howarth said that the land designation was approved by the Province when the COP was approved. This designation is used in analysing consent applications until it is changed either through a complete review and update or through an approved official plan amendment.
SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION
62Having weighed all the written and oral expert evidence, the legal submissions from counsel, and for the reasons set out in this Decision, the Tribunal finds the consent application does not comply with s. 51 (24) of the Act as it does not have regard for the criteria set out in this section, including the requirements to have regard to s. 2 of the Act and conformity with the COP. The consent is not consistent with the PPS and does not represent good planning in the public interest.
63The Tribunal is satisfied based on the testimony of both planners, that the designation of "agriculture" in the COP for the Subject Lands is representative of the "prime agricultural area" defined in the PPS 2024 and the policies regarding consents in "prime agricultural areas."
64The Tribunal prefers the position of the County and supported by the polices of the PPS that the consent application is not consistent with the PPS 2024. Specifically, Section 4.3 of PPS 2024 which is clear that "the agricultural base…shall be designated and protected for long-term use for agriculture." It includes all classes of lands deemed agricultural while merely differentiating them in order of priority as being protected. Severing a parcel for a residential dwelling does not protect the future use of the land for agriculture but instead may result in added barriers to agriculture on the retained parcel.
65The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Howarth that approving this consent does not protect and support the current and future use of the land for agriculture, as the land could be sold to anyone, whether they have intentions to support agriculture or not. This issue is anticipated in Section 2 of the COP when it states that an additional dwelling shall be close to the primary dwelling so that it does not "create conflict for adjacent farms."
66The Tribunal finds Section 6 of the COP important as it indicates that a severance of a dwelling can only be considered in this instance because of farm consolidation which is not the case in this circumstance.
67The Tribunal finds the application does not conform to the lot size requirements for agricultural land in the COP, which require 40 hectares, and the application is for a 2-hectare parcel. It is also informative that the updated zoning by-law also requires a 40-hectare parcel which is an increase from 20 hectares which was required by the previous zoning by-law of the Township and may suggest an expansion of lands deemed agricultural not an opportunity to reduce it.
68The Tribunal finds the proposed consent does not represent good planning nor is it in the public interest. The recommendation provided by both expert planning witnesses is informative with respect to Mr. Laventure’s personal assessment of the poor soil quality of the Subject Lands and the contradiction, in his opinion, of the "prime agricultural" designation. The Planners agreed that this should be addressed through an official plan amendment application not through a consent application. If an official plan amendment were granted, then a consent application could be initiated and assessed based on the planning statutes applicable to the new designation.
69The Tribunal finds the restrictive language in the General Development Policies of the COP informative as it also restricts the severance of a secondary dwelling "from the lot with the primary dwelling" in areas that are serviced by private septic systems or well.
70The Tribunal respects the issues raised regarding the financial implications associated with farming and the importance of supporting family members in continuing to farm. In this instance, the agricultural designation for the Subject Lands and the severance restrictions of the relevant planning policies are not new which was acknowledged by Mr. Laventure.
ORDER
71THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed, and the provisional consent is not to be given.
"Gregory J. Ingram"
GREGORY J. INGRAM
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.