Gauthier-Romaniuk v. Severn (Township), 2021 CanLII 63288

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

July 13, 2021

CASE NO(S).:

PL200078

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellants:

Tawnya and Cory Gauthier-Romaniuk

Subject:

By-law No. 2019-85

Municipality:

Township of Severn

LPAT Case No.:

PL200078

LPAT File No.:

PL200078

LPAT Case Name:

Gauthier-Romaniuk v. Severn (Township)

Heard:

April 14, 2021 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Tawnya and Cory Gauthier-Romaniuk (“Appellants”)

Self-represented

Glen and Heather Stewart

Sarah Hahn*

(“Applicants”)

Charles Lund* (Student-at-law)

DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND HEARING

1The Applicants applied for a zoning by-law amendment to the Township of Severn (“Township”) to rezone the property municipally known as 4265 Carlyon Line (“Subject Lands”) from a Rural Zone to a site-specific industrial exception zone with special provisions in order to permit future industrial development and use (the “Development”). The bulk of the vacant 8.23 hectare (“ha”) Subject Lands are adjacent to the north side of Highway 11 but have access off of a western-boundary driveway on Carlyon Line, (sometimes referred to as “Carlyon” in this Decision) where residential properties are located to the north and south. Non-residential uses are also in proximity to the Subject Lands, on the south side.

2The approval of the application was recommended by Planning Staff and Zoning By-law No. 2019-85 (the “ZBLA”), amending Zoning By-Law No. 2010-65 as amended, was passed by Council for the Township on December 18, 2019, pursuant to s. 34 and s. 36 of the Planning Act (“Act”). The Appellants, whose residence is located immediately to the south and east of the driveway to the Subject Lands, and which also fronts onto Carlyon Line, then appealed the decision of Township Council to the Tribunal.

3The Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on December 4, 2020 and issued a Decision with case management directives on February 3, 2021 at which time the Applicants were granted party status, without objection from the Appellants. The Issues List, based on the matters raised by the Appellants, which is referred to below, was set out in that Decision based upon the Appellants’ appeal and submissions.

4The following documents were received by the Tribunal in advance of the Hearing and were made Exhibits to the hearing:

Exhibit 1 – Two Volume Joint Document Book

Exhibit 2 – Excerpt of the Township of Severn Official Plan

In this Decision, any reference to a numbered “Tab” refers to a Tabulated document identified in Exhibit 1.

5The Township did not formally appear as a party participating in the hearing of the Appeal, but a representative of the Township attended as a friend of the Tribunal. No other person was granted status at the prior CMC or attended the hearing.

6The Tribunal heard from the Appellant, Ms. Gauthier-Romaniuk, who provided brief testimony and made representations on behalf of herself and her spouse.

7The Appellants otherwise called no other witnesses or expert evidence and provided no other evidence other than those documents contained within the Joint Document Book.

8Mr. Gary Bell attended to provide planning evidence on behalf of the Applicant and his curriculum vitae and an executed copy of the Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty were filed (Tabs 28 and 29) for the purposes of being qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Upon reviewing Mr. Bell’s education, qualifications, experience and professional membership, the Panel qualified him to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

ISSUES

9In considering the ZBLA Application and Appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to those matters of Provincial Interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, and must be satisfied, pursuant to s. 3(5) that the proposed instrument, as it will permit the proposed Development, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and will conform with, or not conflict with, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 as amended by Amendment 1(“Growth Plan”). The ZBLA must also conform to the Simcoe County Official Plan (“County OP”) and the Township’s Official Plan inclusive of the Secondary Plan (“Township OP”), must provide for proper performance standards as they may be provided for in the ZBLA as it will amend the Township’s Zoning By-laws, and represent good planning in the public interest.

10In considering these issues, and determining this Appeal, the Tribunal must also have regard to any decision of the Council for the Township as it relates to the ZBLA, and also to the supporting information and material that was before Council in making such decision in relation to the Appeal now before the Tribunal.

11Based upon the matters raised by the Appellants in their Notice of Appeal, the Appellant’s provided their Issues List, which was acknowledged by the Applicants without amendment. The Appellant’s framed the issues, relating to the specific policies of the PPS and the Township OP, and Secondary Plan, as follows:

1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with s. 1.3.2.2, s. 1.3.2.3 & s. 1.3.2.4 of the PPS;

2. Does the proposed amendment conform with s. c.11.4.3(a) of the Township OP?

3. Does the proposed amendment conform with s. E.4.4.2.1, s. E.4.4.2.2, s. E.4.8.2(b) and s. G.2.3(a), of the Township Secondary Plan?

12As the Tribunal heard the evidence and the submissions of the Appellants, the primary and focused concern of the Appellants relates to the single entrance to the Subject Lands from Carlyon Line, which abuts their residence and “front”/side yard amenity space, and the impacts they believe the entrance, with its commercial traffic, will have upon their residence and its use.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, BACKGROUND, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONTEXT

13The Subject Lands form a large irregularly shaped 8.23 ha parcel of land located on the north side of Highway 11, and east of the interchange of Carlyon Line from Highway 11. A good portion of the easterly “rear” of the Subject Lands is immediately adjacent to the highway corridor and off-ramp and the westerly section of the lands is bounded to the south by other privately owned lands, including the Appellants’ residential lot to the south and a second lot to the south of their property. Other than this limited residential use, these adjacent lands to the south are designated Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2). The gated driveway entrance to the Subject Lands has 20 metres (“m”) of frontage on Carlyon.

14The evidence confirms that the Subject Lands, and the single 20 m entrance are residual to a number of rural residential lot severances effected years ago, creating the two lots to the south (including the Appellants’ lot), and a pattern of development containing nine lots on the east side of Carlyon and to the north of the entrance, and other subdivided or severed lots to the east and lying along the westerly north boundary of the Subject Lands.

15The Subject Lands are located in an area of mixed rural and industrial land use. As it is located along Highway 11, the lands are within the Township South Division Road Secondary Plan area designated as Industrial. The other properties to the south of the Subject Lands are zoned M2 and are used for a roofing business, a plumbing business and a swimming pool company.

16The Applicants began plans for the development of the Subject Lands back in 2007, initially with plans for an industrial subdivision. A Township zoning by-law amendment in 2015 was enacted as a “housekeeping” amendment to rezone the property to General Industrial Hold (M2-H) with a Hold for site plan approval. This was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; at which time it was discovered that the Township had mistakenly believed the rezoning was reinstating the zoning of the Subject Lands to their previous industrial zoning. The Appeal, at that time, was not heard by the Board on its merits. That 2015 zoning by-law was subsequently repealed, and the zoning of the Subject Lands remained Rural (RU). The Applicants then brought the Application, which led to the ZBLA now appealed.

17The ZBLA that was enacted by Council and now under appeal, is appended to this Decision and Order as Attachment 1.

18The ZBLA rezones the Subject Lands to General Industrial (M2) with site-specific performance and development requirements with a Holding provision in place. The pre-application consultation resulted in a number of changes to the proposed industrial subdivision, which is now to be developed as one industrial lot, and recommendations arising from the Environmental Impact Statement were implemented into the Holding provisions of the ZBLA and are to be addressed through a Site Plan Agreement.

19The permitted uses and Special Provisions provided for in the ZBLA, and which will govern the proposed Development, are as follows:

1. Twenty-four permitted uses are listed in the ZBLA. Only dry industrial uses are permitted (e.g. water and sewage disposal requirements are limited and not typically necessary as part of the assembly, manufacturing, fabrication, repair, packaging and storage activities);

2. No disturbance of the natural vegetation within 20.0 metres of land, where the primary use is residential;

3. No outdoor storage or loading shall occur within 70.0 metres of land, where the primary use is residential; and,

4. No disturbance of the natural vegetation within 30.0 metres of land zoned Environmental Protection (“EP”).

20The ZBLA also then sets out the provisions relating to the Holding Provisions, which provide a list of further requirements relating to the Site Plan Agreement including implementation of the Environmental Impact Study and the completion of an Entrance Analysis, arising from the traffic study and the peer review undertaken.

THE APPELLANTS’ EVIDENCE/SUBMISSIONS

21As Ms. Gauthier-Romaniuk explains, when their property at 4269 Carlyon was purchased, they were aware of the surrounding lands and uses and the presence of the driveway entrance to the Subject Lands immediately to the west. The Appellant indicates that the home does not face Carlyon but rather, faces the length of the 20 m driveway extending from Carlyon into the bulk of the Subject Lands. The distance from the outside corner of the Appellants’ dwelling is 9.1 m from the east boundary of the driveway of the Subject Lands, the separation distance to their garage is 15.2 m from the boundary.

22Ms. Gauthier-Romaniuk expresses the personal opinion that residential uses would be appropriate for the Subject Lands and that a “conversion” to employment lands is unneeded, particularly as the pandemic has resulted in alternate working environments and work-from-home possibilities and a reduction in the need for employment areas.

23It is the Appellants’ submission that the ZBLA and the proposed use of the lands for the Development are inconsistent with Policies 1.3.2.2 and 1.3.2.3 of the PPS, which require that employment areas planned for industrial and manufacturing uses provide for separation or mitigation from sensitive land uses and provide appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas. This policy is intended to maintain the long-term operation and viability of the planned uses and functions of these areas, and within employment areas, prohibit residential uses and prohibit or limit other sensitive land uses in order to maintain land use compatibility.

24The Appellants also refer to Policy 1.3.2.4 of the PPS, which speaks to the conversion of existing employment lands to non-employment uses.

25With respect to the issues of conformity with the Township OP, and the Secondary Plan, the Appellants again focus on the concerns of compatibility and rely upon s. C11.4.3, which directs that regard be given to compatibility of the Highway Employment Area use with adjoining areas to ensure the Highway commercial uses do not have a detrimental effect on adjoining properties. The Appellants have directed the Tribunal to subparagraph (a) which requires adequate buffering through plantings of vegetation between commercial uses and adjacent residential units.

26The Appellants also submit that the proposed Development, with the 20 m frontage on Carlyon to be used as the only road access, does not have “appropriate frontage” for the industrial uses. As to road access, the Appellants submit that the Development does not conform to Policy E.4.4.2.2 of the Secondary Plan, which requires proper internal road access to a provincial highway or arterial road and demonstrates that the use will not create a traffic hazard, with minimal impact on adjacent land uses, particularly in residential land uses.

27Further, the Appellants submit that the Subject Lands, as they will be re-designated does not conform to Policy E.4.8.2 (relating to Rural designations under the Township OP) and Policy G.2.3(a) because the Development’s location must be compatible with surrounding uses and designations, and is not, since it may negatively impact the adjoining residential uses of the Appellants’ property.

28On the central issue of incompatibility of the residential uses with the proposed industrial use, the Appellants’ submit that the location of the driveway between two residential lots, is not compatible and there is insufficient buffering in place since the driveway will cover the width of the 20 m frontage, albeit with fencing to the north and south, to buffer the driveway from the adjacent residences. Additional frontage should be required and with only 20 m, the Appellants feel that there is no room for a vegetative buffer.

29The Appellants also cite the depreciation in the value of their home as a consideration. Unfortunately, and quite simply, this argument is not a valid planning concern for the Tribunal and will not be further addressed.

30The planning evidence addressing these policies identified by the Appellants, and responding to these issues, and the specific policy provisions of the PPS and the Township OP and Secondary Plan identified by the Appellants are discussed below in the overall analysis of the planning evidence and issues.

DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING EVIDENCE AND ISSUES

31Mr. Bell provided the initial planning justification report (Tab 8) on behalf of the Applicants and assisted with a number of follow-up reports and involvement in the pre-application processes with the Township. At the hearing, Mr. Bell provided a comprehensive overview of the policy context for the Application and the Appeal, and his planning opinions and recommendations. The planning evidence is consistent with, and corroborated by, the reports and evidence of the Planning Staff for the Township. It is also uncontroverted planning evidence.

The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and the Growth Plan

32Mr. Bell testified that the Subject Lands, as they are designated Industrial in the Township OP, is an “Employment Area” as defined in the PPS and that given its proximity to the Highway 11 corridor, with direct access off of Carlyon Line, it is appropriately situated to support future industrial development and employment. Mr. Bell was of the view that the future development potential of the Subject Lands was anticipated and addressed when earlier severances carved out the various rural residential lots but maintained the 20 m road/driveway access (equal to the width of the municipal right-of-way) as the potential entrance to the interior block of land. The location of the Subject Lands along Highway 11, and adjacent to the other employment uses, and to the interchange leading directly to Carlyon Line, is of significance to its potential for future development. Mr. Bell stated that the existing residential lots were developed in the context of the planned industrial and employment uses for the area. The Appellants’ property is, in fact, noted by Mr. Bell to be designated as Industrial in the Township OP.

33Based on the analysis that was completed by Mr. Bell, he testified that there was a demonstrated need for employment lands in the municipality, and that there is nothing to suggest that the need for those employment lands has permanently been altered by the Pandemic, as the Appellants suggest. While the Appellants suggest that any dealings with the Subject Lands should await further and future review of the OP, Mr. Bell is of the view that the Applications should be assessed against the current policy framework.

34Citing the various policies of the PPS addressing Employment Areas, Mr. Bell was of the view that the ZBLA, as it permitted the Development with the restrictive provisions, was consistent with the PPS policies which plan for, protect and preserve employment areas, particularly, those in proximity to major corridors such as Highway 11, while protecting natural features, habitats and water with the restrictions and provisions in the ZBLA incorporating the Site Plan requirements and recommendations of the environmental assessment.

35Mr. Bell, in his evidence, and with the evidentiary record, identified the planned vegetative buffers and non-development buffers that are provided for in the ZBLA, and the appropriate measures that will follow with the Site Plan processes to ensure that the Development addresses the Environmental Impact Study and other assessments undertaken, including an Entrance Analysis. These were set out in a presentation and included at Tab 5.

36Mr. Bell has also identified the Traffic Impact Study (Tab 12) which was subject to a peer review. Traffic volumes were not determined to be a concern. With respect to the suitability of the entrance, and in particular, the sufficiency of the 20 m entrance to handle the incoming traffic to the Development, the Traffic Impact Study confirmed the appropriateness of the site lines and the Peer Review gave rise to comments and recommendations. These, in turn, were implemented into the ZBLA and the Site Plan requirements to ensure that the additional entrance analysis was undertaken, and a new municipal collector road be provided if required by the Township. Mr. Bell concluded that the concerns expressed by the Appellants have been addressed through these processes as integrated into the ZBLA.

37Mr. Bell also opined that the restrictions on uses and the excluded uses, and the areas where outdoor storage are prohibited directly address issues of compatibility based on the planning and other studies undertaken, serve to address compatibility. Mr. Bell testified that all of the special provisions contained within the ZBLA, in his view, were put in place for the express purpose of safeguarding the reasonable and appropriate development of the land, while providing for compatibility with adjacent land uses, including the Appellants’ residential land use.

38With respect to the Growth Plan, Mr. Bell, in his planning justification report, and his evidence, focused upon those portions of the Growth Plan policies promoting economic development and competitiveness and protecting natural heritage features. In both respects, and overall, Mr. Bell opined that the ZBLA conformed to the Growth Plan as the Subject Lands were designated Industrial, were well-situated and suitable for providing future employment uses, and contributed to the provision of an adequate supply of employment land to accommodate employment forecasts.

39In all respects, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Bell’s planning evidence and finds that the proposed Development, as permitted by the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal is unable to accept the Appellant’s interpretation of the PPS policies cited in support of the Appeal and must agree with Mr. Bell that there is no conversion of lands to non-employment uses and no comprehensive review occurring in the manner addressed in Policy 1.3.2.4. The Tribunal also finds that Policy 1.3.2.3 is not appliable given that there is no prohibition of residential uses occurring with respect to lands already designated Industrial, and the ZBLA does not give rise to a prohibition of residential uses. With respect to employment areas, as addressed in Policy 1.3.2.2, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Bell’s planning evidence that the circumstances of this ZBLA are in keeping with the general approach of municipalities and the province to protect employment lands along provincial highways.

40The Tribunal also pointedly finds that, in these circumstances, it is appropriate that the ZBLA application and this Appeal be considered against the existing policy framework, in accordance with the long-established approach of the Tribunal. The fact that the Township OP may eventually be the subject of further review does not warrant a “hold” on the consideration of the Applicants’ Development application.

41The Tribunal is, upon the evidence, and for the reasons indicated, accordingly unable to accept the Appellants’ personal views on the subject of the ZBLA’s consistency with the PPS. To the contrary, within the overall planning context – the Industrial Designations under the Township OP, the existing and planned context, and the existing Employment Area under the PPS and the Growth Plan – the Tribunal concludes that the rezoning of the lands from Rural to M2 General, with the special provisions addressing compatibility issues, is consistent in all respects with the Province’s higher order planning policies contained within the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.

Conformity With the County and Township Growth Plans

42Mr. Bell reviewed the policies of the Township OP that address land use compatibility and the sections identified by the Appellants (s. C11.4.3(a)) and in the Secondary Plan (Tab 21). It was his opinion that there was adequate buffer plantings in place under the special provisions of the ZBLA and adequate steps in place through the holding provision, the site plan and the required Entrance Analysis to address any concerns of compatibility.

43Of significance to Mr. Bell, and to the Tribunal, is that the Location Criteria in E.4.4.2.2 of the Secondary Plan addressing the location of industrial uses must be considered in the context that the Subject Lands, and much of the immediate surrounding area, has already been designated under the Official Plan for Industrial use. Mr. Bell was of the view that the policies here that speak to matters of road access, have been the subject of a full assessment and peer review, determined to be manageable and in conformity to these policies, and subject to further study in the ZBLA required Entrance Analysis.

44With respect to the Appellants’ reference to Policy E.4.8.2(b), Mr. Bell’s expert evidence is that these policies relate to Rural classifications under the Township OP and those planning considerations that may apply for the re-designation of rural lands under the Township OP. These policies do not apply to the rezoning of Rural lands under the Township’s Zoning By-law. Mr. Bell has opined that the rezoning that will occur under the ZBLA conforms to the OP as it rezones the Subject Lands, under the Industrial designation from Rural to a General Industrial exception.

45Finally, with respect to the Appellants’ issues relating to Policy G.2.3(a) of the Township OP (Exhibit 2) Mr. Bell stated that the permitted uses and the restricted uses under the ZBLA, together with the site plan controls to follow, are expressly for the purposes of mitigating any adverse impact and addressing compatibility. Mr. Bell frankly recognized that the opening and improvements to the driveway to the Subject Lands, to now facilitate the Development, will result in a change in the level of privacy enjoyed by the Appellants as the Subject Lands have remained undeveloped for so long. The evidence before the Tribunal, in part upon the Appellants’ testimony, is that the Appellants have relied upon vegetation located upon the Applicants’ portion of the Subject Lands near Carlyon Line, rather than plantings on their own property, as beneficial to providing a natural privacy screen.

46However, Mr. Bell has noted that the placement of the closed board fence, as identified in the materials, and the placement of the minimum 20 m vegetation buffer beyond the driveway and further into the Subject Lands, and along the east boundary of the Appellants’ property, together with the restriction of uses within 70 m beyond (Tab 5, page 58) the vegetative buffer, have all been set out in the Special Provisions specifically to mitigate the changes arising from the Development. On cross-examination, Mr. Bell confirmed that, although the opening of the driveway would result in the removal of trees forming part of a vegetative screen appreciated by the Appellants, these trees are located on the Applicants’ lands and not on the Appellants’ lands. As the focus will be on proper design of the road, drainage, noise attenuation and privacy, some vegetation will indeed be removed, and some may remain.

47In Mr. Bell’s view, the considerable application review and studies undertaken by the Applicants’ team of planners and engineers, reviewed and supported by the Township’s Planning staff, demonstrates the extent to which compatibility and mitigation have been carefully considered. Generally, Mr. Bell concludes that an examination of the area around the Subject Lands confirms that the character is both the long existing residential uses and industrial uses within the Township OP designated Industrial area. The special provisions of the ZBLA protect that character, mitigate any impacts, and provide for the Development’s compatibility with the rural residential area. In that respect, Mr. Bell concludes that the ZBLA conforms to the Township OP.

48Upon that basis, as the County OP provides simply that Development in this area of the County will occur in accordance with the policies of the Township OP, Mr. Bell has provided the summary opinion that there is also conformity with the County OP.

49While the Tribunal recognizes that the use of the 20 m of frontage of the Subject Lands on Carlyon Line for its long-intended purpose of accessing lands appropriate for Industrial development will indeed result in change, such change is reasonably occurring within the existing and planned context, consistent with the higher order Provincial policies and plans, and with considerable mitigation and compatibility strategies in place under the ZBLA. The Appellants’ expressed apprehensions and concerns regarding these changes do not alter the overwhelming planning evidence, and other supporting technical evidence, that supported the enactment of the ZBLA, and which is now again before the Tribunal. The Applicants’ planning and technical evidence now provided in this Appeal is also supported by the Township’s planning assessment (Tab 7) which is also, otherwise, unchallenged by any evidence from the Appellants in this Hearing.

50Upon the whole of the unchallenged evidence presented by the Applicant, and forming part of the Municipal Record and evidentiary record, which is accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the ZBLA conforms to the Township OP and to the County OP.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE

51The Tribunal has carefully considered the issues raised by the Appellants and the whole of the planning evidence, essentially uncontroverted and unchallenged, as provided by the Applicants and supported by the Town’s planning recommendations. Upon the whole of the evidence, and the above-mentioned findings of consistency and conformity, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Development, as it will be permitted by the ZBLA as enacted by the Township Council, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, conforms to both the County OP and the Township OP, including the Secondary Plan, represents good planning in the public interest and should accordingly be approved.

52In making these findings, and reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal has had regard to those matters of Provincial Interest set out in s. 2 of the Act as well as for the decision of Council as it approved the eventual form of the Development and passed the ZBLA, as well as the supporting information and material that was before Council in making such decisions.

ORDER

53The Tribunal orders that the appeal against Zoning By-law No. 2019-85 of the Township of Severn is dismissed.

“David L. Lanthier”

DAVID L. LANTHIER

VICE-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.

ATTACHMENT 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN

BY-LAW NO. 2019-85

BEING A ZONING BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE USE OF LAND AND THE LOCATION AND USE OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ON CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED AS West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division, geographic Township of Orillia, now in the Township of Severn (4265 Carlyon Line)

WHEREAS the matters hereinafter set out conform with the Official Plan in effect for the Township of Severn;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Severn deems it advisable to amend the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 2010-65, as otherwise amended, as they apply to those lands described as West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division, Geographic Township of Orillia, now in the Township of Severn, municipally known as 4265 Carlyon Line;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Severn has determined that no further Notice is required in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THAT Schedule “S-9-5” and “E-4” of Zoning By-law No. 2010-65, as otherwise amended, is hereby further amended by changing the Zone Classification on certain lands described as West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division, Geographic Township of Orillia, now in the Township of Severn, municipally known as 4265 Carlyon Line, from the Rural (RU) Zone to the General Industrial Exception Five Holding Thirty-Eight (M2-5-H38) Zone, in part, and the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, in part, in accordance with Schedule "1" attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.

2. THAT Section 8.5.2 entitled “Exceptions to General Industrial Two (M2) Zone” of Zoning By-law No. 2010-65, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following exception Zone M2-5 to the end thereof:

Exception

By-law

Location

Schedule

Special Provisions

M2-5

2019-85

West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division Orillia

4265 Carlyon Line

S-9-5

E-4

Permitted Uses

Restricted to the following in accordance with Section 3.30.2:

i) Assembly, Fabricating, Manufacturing or Processing

ii) Broadcasting and Communications Establishment

iii) Building Supply Outlet/Yard

iv) Business, Professional or Administrative Office

v) Cartage or Transportation Depot

vi) Contractor’s Establishment

vii) Custom Workshop

viii) Dwelling, Accessory

ix) Equipment Sales, Service or Rental Establishment

x) Farm Supply / Implement Dealer

xi) Greenhouse/Nursery/Garden Centre

xii) Light Manufacturing

xiii) Marina Sales and Service Establishment

xiv) Motor Vehicle Dealership

xv) Motor Vehicle Repair and Body Shop

xvi) Motor Vehicle Service Station

xvii) Outdoor Storage, Accessory

xviii) Printing and Publishing Establishment

xix) Public Use

xx) Research Establishment

xxi) Self-Storage Facility

xxii) Service Establishment

xxiii) Storage Yard

xxiv) Warehouse

Special Provisions

i) Minimum Lot Frontage - 20 m

ii) No disturbance of the natural vegetation within 20 m (min.) of land zoned Rural Residential (RR) or Residential (R1).

iii) No Outdoor Storage or loading shall occur within 70 m (min.) of a Rural Residential (RR) lot or Residential (R1) lot.

iv) No disturbance of the natural vegetation within 30 m (min.) of land zoned Environmental Protection (EP).

3. THAT Section 10.3 “List of Holding Provisions” shall be amended by changing the following Holding Provision within Table 10.1:

Zone Symbol

Holding Provision

Property/Legal Description

Schedule No.

By-law No.

Provisions

By-law Removing “H”

M2

H-38

West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division Orillia

4265 Carlyon Line

S-9-5

E-4

2019-85

Site Plan Agreement which includes, but is not limited to, provisions for:

i) fencing, drainage, buffers, driveway pavement, lighting, and stormwater management;

ii) confirmation that the recommendations of the following studies, including associated Peer Reviews, will be or have been implemented:

a. Environmental Impact Study, supplementary documentation and the Peer Review by Palmer Environmental dated November 25, 2019

b. Preliminary Hydrogeological Study and the Peer Review by GAMAN Consultants Inc. dated May 27, 2019

c. Functional Servicing Letter and the Peer Review by J. Marshall Engineering dated May 21, 2019

iii) completion of an Entrance Analysis; and,

iv) provision for a new municipal collector road, if required by the Township.

4. THAT Zoning By-law No. 2010-65, as otherwise amended, is hereby amended to give effect to the foregoing, but Zoning By-law No. 2010-65, as otherwise amended, shall in all other respects remain in full force and effect save as same may be otherwise amended or herein dealt with.

5. THAT subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, this By-law shall come into force on the date it is passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Severn.

By-law read a first and second time this 18th day of December, 2019.

By-law read a third time and finally passed this18th day of December, 2019.

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN

MAYOR

CLERK

SCHEDULE “1”

West Part Lot 3, Concession 6, South Division, geographic Township of Orillia, now in the Township of Severn (4265 Carlyon Line)

4265 Carlyon Line, to be rezoned from the Rural (RU) Zone to the General Industrial Exception Five Holding Thirty-Eight (M2-5-H38) Zone.

4265 Carlyon Line, to be rezoned from the Rural (RU) Zone to the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone.

This is Schedule ‘1’ to By-law No. 2019-85

Passed the 18th day of December, 2019

MAYOR

________________________________ CLERK