At the Munster - OMB Hearing...
the Region's Top Planner
---who drafted the Region's Official Plan---

admitted that he had not even looked at the Evaluation Matrix,

to assess Official Plan compliance of
the Region's "Preferred Option"

It begs the question...  "What are Official Plans for?"
 
     

Ontario Municipal Board - (Hearing Number PL990527) - Excerpts from
Decision Delivered by N. M. Katary and Order of the Board:
     
 


" An aspect of the evidence by Mr. Phelan is worthy of note. He prepared the planning report for the Official Plan Amendment. During the hearing he stated that he took the recommendation by CRA for the pipeline alternative and prepared the amendment accordingly. He admitted in a forthright manner that he had not studied the evaluation methodology nor seen the Table F-1 and went on to say that he saw the Table F-1 for the first time during the hearing."

  

 
 
 

"The principal issue for the Board is whether or not the proposed
amendment conforms to the Official Plan and represents good planning."

"The evidence on the proposed amendment conforming to the existing official plan was quite brief. Mr. Joseph Phalen, the Manager of Land Use Planning Projects with the City of Ottawa gave evidence in support of the amendment for about 45 minutes.  ...The brevity of evidence on the Plan conformity comes into sharper focus when it is realized that this was a three week-long hearing with an evening session."

"He (Mr. Phalen) was candid in stating that he had not seen the evaluation Table F-1 that was the basis for selecting the pipeline alternative until he appeared at the hearing."

"The planner (Mr. Michael Wright) called by the appellant detailed how the proposed pipeline did not conform to either the Provincial Policy Statement or the Official Plan. He explained how the pipeline was contrary to Section 1.1.2(b) of the Policy Statement which states that land use patterns will be based upon "densities which: efficiently use infrastructure, avoid the need for unnecessary and/or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure".

The planner went through several sub-sections of the Official Plan in Sections 3.7, 4 and 10.3 dealing with servicing for a rural area, economic activity, and the establishment of a waste management or transfer facility in a rural area respectively and explained how the proposed amendment does not conform to those sections and sub-sections of the Official Plan. He spent some time in explaining how the proposed pipeline amendment does not conform to sub-section 4.1.2.8 which states, "Support innovative solutions to reduce costs of development, such as alternative development standards, and pilot projects for new technologies"."


 "The Board prefers the evidence by the land use planner called
by the appellant because they were rooted in a thorough understanding
of the land use planning implications of the proposed amendment."

Note: (The 'appellant' in this instance is Mr. Gordon Sample)

Full Text of OMB Decision  |  CLOSE WINDOW