The High Cost of Non-Participation in the Landownership Group – When Landowners Get Planned Around

In designated growth areas across Ontario—such as Secondary Plan zones, urban expansion areas, and lands within the Provincially Significant Employment or Residential Intensification corridors—municipalities require coordinated land use, servicing, and infrastructure planning. To meet these objectives, developers and landowners form Landowner Groups (LOGs) to:

Coordinate Official Plan Amendments (OPAs) and Secondary Plans
Cost-share infrastructure and environmental studies
Protect value through equitable land use designations

But what happens when one landowner decides not to join the LOG?

This case study explores a real-world scenario where a single landowner's refusal to cooperate resulted in devastating planning designations, cost burdens, and value erosion.

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

Map demonstrating Institutional Land Use change for public elementary and community centre.

Without a seat at the table, the municipality identified the holdout parcel as the most “strategically located” site for a public elementary school and community centre. These uses are exempt from development yield until they are needed and then they will be compensated based on the LOG Cost sharing agreement. They could be expropriated, which often takes years and is typically paid towards the end of development of the entire secondary plan area.

2. Natural Heritage System (NHS) Expansion

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

Map demonstrating a Natural Heritage System expansion.

LOG members negotiated through consultants to reduce NHS designations on developable land.

To satisfy environmental net-gain policies, the holdout’s entire frontage was mapped as ecological compensation lands, rendering it undevelopable.

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

Map demonstrating a regional pond on a property for Stormwater Management Facility Designation

A regional pond was required. LOG members proposed the low-lying holdout parcel—with no opposition or alternative put forward.

Once designated in the secondary plan, the land became functionally sterilized with no development value.

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

Map demonstrating an area of compensatory wetland on an LOG holdout's parcel.

To fill existing uneconomical wetlands on LOG land, a new wetland was proposed on the holdout’s parcel. The land became subject to conservation regulation, permanently restricting development and drastically lowering value. In other cases, the LOG proposed parkland.

5. Arterial Road Alignment

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

Map demonstrating an arterial road proposed on a non-LOG participant's land.

A new arterial road was required. The LOG lobbied to protect their parcels. The road was realigned to cut directly through the non-participant’s land, splitting it into two unusable slivers with heavy road setbacks and no functional block depths.

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

Map on an effected parcel that has fragmented lot layout and a lack of access to servicing and roads

LOG members planned coordinated lot configurations with shared access and grading. The holdout’s land became dependent on adjacent parcels for servicing and road access. No easement or connection was granted, rendering it functionally landlocked.

Additional Financial and Legal Penalties

7. No Share in Front-Ending or Cost Recovery

LOG members signed front-ending agreements with the municipality to build and fund trunk infrastructure. The holdout:

May NOT receive any share of recoveries or partial compensation
Was not reimbursed for delayed servicing
Faced full capital costs out-of-pocket if seeking individual development approval later

8. Missed Cash Call Contributions

As part of LOG participation, members contributed to a cost-sharing pool(often six or seven figures per member) to fund depending on their percentage as a whole to the entire development:

Planning applications
Legal representation
Environmental studies
Servicing strategies

The holdout was excluded from all benefits but would later be required to pay proportionate costs, often with interest, if attempting to develop.

9. Exclusion from Group Appeals and Density Negotiations

LOG members jointly appealed planning designations at the LPAT and successfully negotiated higher densities. The non-participant:

Received no density uplift
Could not leverage shared legal counsel
Had no role in OPA language, leaving the land with base-case, maybe just low-density designation or other lower value use

10. Missing on Servicing allocations

The non participant maybe pushed to receive services allocation once all the participant have developed in the event of capacity issues

The High Cost of Non-Participation in the Landownership Group – When Landowners Get Planned Around

Potential Consequences of Non-Participation

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

2. Natural Heritage System (NHS) Expansion

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

1. Institutional Land Use (School or Community Centre)

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

3. Stormwater Management Facility Designation

5. Arterial Road Alignment

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

4. Regulated Compensatory Wetland or Parkland

6. Fragmented Lot Layout and No Access

Additional Financial and Legal Penalties

Risks to Financing and Disposition

Key Takeaway: You're Either at the Table—Or You're on the Table

When to Act: The Time to Engage is Now

Final Word