Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
CASE NO(S).:
PL200425
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO(S).:
PL200425
DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):
June 15, 2021
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:
June 18, 2021
RE: Lengyel v. Springwater (Township)
Correction to: First name of Director of Planning for the Township in paragraph [2]
Originally:
Corrected to:
Brian Spagnol
Brent Spagnol
“Becky Fong”
BECKY FONG
REGISTRAR
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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 15, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL200425
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Norbert Lengyel
Subject:
Consent
Property Address/Description:
45 Huron Street
Municipality:
Township of Springwater
Municipal File No.:
B03/20
LPAT Case No.:
PL200425
LPAT File No.:
PL200425
LPAT Case Name:
Lengyel v. Springwater (Township)
Heard:
March 11, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Norbert Lengyel
Self-represented
Township of Springwater
Sarah Hahn* and Charles Lund* (Articling Student)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT ON MARCH 11, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Norbert Lengyel, (the “Applicant/Appellant”) appealed the refusal of the request for consent to sever for the purpose of creating an additional lot from the existing corner lot known as 45 Huron Street in the Township of Springwater (“Township”). The proposed severed lot would front onto Stokes Drive. The existing residence would be retained with a new dwelling proposed to be erected on the severed portion.
2The Tribunal heard from a total of three land use planning witness: Brian Spagnol, Director of Planning for the Township under summons, Joseph Plutino for the Applicant/Appellant, and Marie Poirier on behalf of the Township. All three were qualified to assist the Tribunal in its deliberations by providing opinion evidence in areas of land use planning and each filed an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty.
3One participant statement was received and on file from the owners of 10 Foyston Gate, Gayle and Brian MacDonald, citing concerns with respect to the size of the two resulting lots and the proposed servicing.
4The property is located within the settlement areas of both the Regional and Township Official Plans, designated Urban Residential and zoned R1. The severance would however result in lots having areas of 1092.54 square metres (“sq m”), which is less than the minimum stipulated by the current requirement of 1390 sq m, and would also result in the former side yard to the existing structure becoming a rear yard with less than the required setback of 7.5 metres (“m”) given the existing setback of 6.4 m. The Applicant/Appellant is aware of these deficiencies but has not sought to concurrently seek approvals to remedy the deficiencies, instead preferring to rely upon related recommended conditions of the provisional consent to sever subject of this appeal.
5Existing lots in the area are serviced with municipal water and are on private septic systems.
6Mr. Spagnol maintains the staff position that provisional consent, subject to the recommended conditions being satisfied by the Applicant/Appellant addressing both servicing and the appropriate remedy to the above cited deficiencies, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and in conformity to the Growth Plan, the County of Simcoe Official Plan and specifically drew the Tribunal’s attention to s. 8.7.1.3 of the Township’s Official Plan, which acknowledges that future development in this portion of the settlement area will occur on partial services, specifically in this instance, the existing combination of municipal water and private sanitary. This policy is complemented by s. 9.1.2.3 of the Official Plan which states that “Residential uses shall be generally confined to areas designated for such uses in recognized settlement areas. The infilling of existing lots in these settlement areas will be encouraged.” This policy conforms to the general thrust of the Growth Plan to encourage compact urban form.
7Mr. Plutino on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, concurs and adopts staff’s recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the report. He elaborated in his evidence on the Consent policies in the Township’s Official Plan bringing to the attention of the Tribunal’s s. 28.2.2.14. which states that:
Consents to sever individual parcels of land shall only be granted if it is apparent the no development could result which would lead to significant expense by the Township for additional public works and that the cost of the provision/installation of all required services are borne by the owner and/or developer.
8The recommended conditions address the responsibility of all costs arising.
9The witness also addressed s. 28.2.2.10 which requires that:
The size of any parcel of land created by such consent shall be appropriate for the use proposed and in no case shall any parcel be created which does not conform to the provisions of the implementing Zoning By-law. The size of any lot created by consent should be consistent with lot sizes in the vicinity of said lot unless other agencies or regulations require larger lots.
10With respect to the latter, the witness filed Exhibit MM as part of his Affidavit, Exhibit 2. The Exhibit illustrates the variable lot size in the vicinity with particular lot areas for 40 lots having lot areas less than 1390 sq m.
11With respect to the requirement to meet the zoning provisions, both Mr. Spagnol and Mr. Plutino are of like mind that an appropriate remedy can be sought, and that attaching such a condition when granting provisional consent constitutes an appropriate condition pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
12Ms. Poirier, on behalf of the Town was however of the opinion that the proposal to create one additional lot ought to be subject to the rigours of the original Subdivision Agreement and that all of the recommended conditions and agency related certification with respect to servicing of the lots should be determined prior to the granting of provisional consent.
13The Tribunal however is satisfied that the creation of one lot within an existing plan of subdivision in a designated settlement area can be determined through the satisfaction of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and that the conditions recommended by staff based on a full circulation of the application to all of the appropriate commenting agencies, and adopted and commended by the witness for the Applicant/Appellant, namely address the germane criteria:
That the Applicant/Applicant meets all the requirements, financial or otherwise of the Municipality;
That the Applicant/Appellant provide two copies of the registered survey of the conveyed lands by an Ontario Land surveyor;
That the Applicant/Appellant satisfy and be responsible for all costs to satisfy s. 65 of the Drainage Act 1990, if applicable;
That the Applicant/Appellant provide confirmation that the septic system is wholly contained within the boundaries of the retained lot, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official;
That the Applicant/Appellant provide confirmation that the proposed lot can accommodate a private septic system, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official;
That the Applicant/Appellant complete a D-5-4 individual On Site Sewage System: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment or provide adequate septic design information confirming the new septic system will incorporate a Level IV treatment with di-nitrification technology, to the satisfaction of the Chief’s Building Official.
That the Applicant/Appellant confirm that the proposed lot can be adequately serviced by municipal water;
That the Applicant/Appellant obtain an entrance permit from the Township of Springwater;
That the Applicant/Appellant obtain the necessary approvals to permit the proposed deficient lot areas and to recognize a deficient setback for the retained dwelling; and,
That the Applicant/Appellant be required to pay to the Township a parkland dedication fee for the severed lot in line with the Township’s Parkland Dedication Policy.
13It is therefore the finding of the Tribunal that, together with the preferred, contrary evidence that a plan of subdivision is not required to create one lot having frontage on an existing street where municipal water is available, the criteria of s. 51(24) have or will be satisfied through the recommended conditions as preconditions to the granting of a consent.. The creation of this one additional lot is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan policies encouraging compact urban forms within settlement areas, thereby better utilizing existing servicing.
ORDER
16The appeal is therefore allowed and provisional consent is granted subject to the following conditions:
1 That the Applicant/Appellant meets all the requirements, financial or otherwise of the Municipality;
2 That the Applicant/Appellant provide two copies of the registered survey of the conveyed lands by an Ontario Land surveyor;
3 That the Applicant/Appellant satisfy and be responsible for all costs to satisfy Section 65 of the Drainage Act 1990, if applicable;
4 That the Applicant/Appellant provide confirmation that the septic system is wholly contained within the boundaries of the retained lot, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official;
5 That the Applicant/Appellant provide confirmation that the proposed lot can accommodate a private septic system, to the satisfaction of the Township’s Chief Building Official;
6 That the Applicant/Appellant complete a D-5-4 individual On Site Sewage System: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment or provide adequate septic design information confirming the new septic system will incorporate a Level IV treatment with di-nitrification technology, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
7 That the Applicant/Appellant confirm that the proposed lot can be adequately serviced by municipal water;
8 That the Applicant/Appellant obtain an entrance permit from the Township of Springwater;
9 That the Applicant/Appellant obtain the necessary approvals to permit the proposed deficient lot areas and to recognize a deficient setback for the retained dwelling; and,
10 That the Applicant/Appellant be required to pay to the Township a parkland dedication fee for the severed lot in line with the Township’s Parkland Dedication Policy.
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN VINCENT
ASSOCIATE CHAIR
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.