Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 14, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003995
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Felix Frick
Subject: Consent
Description: Consent Application – refused by Approval Authority
Reference Number: BNPL2022090
Property Address: 871 Norfolk County Road 19 N0E 1Z0
Municipality: Norfolk
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003995
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003995
OLT Case Name: Frick v. Norfolk (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Subject:
Felix Frick Consent
Description: Consent Application – refused by Approval Authority
Reference Number: BNPL2022091
Property Address: 871 Norfolk County Road 19 N0E 1Z0
Municipality: Norfolk
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003996
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003995
Heard: October 7, 2022, via Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Felix Frick (“Applicant” or “Appellant”)
Alex Ciccone
Norfolk County (“County”)
Peter Tice
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This is an appeal of the decision of County’s Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) denying two consent applications (BNPL2022090 and BNPL2022091) relating to the severance and addition of lands from an adjacent property to the property municipally known as 887 Norfolk County Road 19 E (“Subject Property”).
2After reviewing both the original applications, the County’s planning department prepared reports recommending against the approval of the consent applications (“County Planning Reports”) since the original applications were not considered to be a minor boundary adjustment between the Subject Property and the Adjacent Property due to the amount of land that would be transferred to the Subject Property. Based on this report, the Committee denied both applications. The Applicant appealed the Committee decisions.
3Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and the Appellant withdrew one of its consent applications, BNPL2022091 or OLT 22-00-3996. The only application before the Tribunal is the consent application BNPL2022090 (OLT 22-00-3995), which has been amended to reduce the area of property proposed to be annexed from the adjacent property at 871 Norfolk County Road 19 E. (“Adjacent Property”)
4This appeal is a hearing de novo of the remaining consent application. The Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the Committee and the material considered in rendering it.
5At the hearing, the Tribunal confirmed that based on a file review and consultation with counsel that there were no issues with notice and no participant or party status requests.
planning evidence and general context
6Michael J. Sullivan was called by the Applicant to testify on land use planning matters (“Applicant’s Planner” or “Mr. Sullivan”) and was properly qualified as an expert witness in this field. At the beginning of the hearing, the Member identified several gaps and discrepancies in the planning report affidavit submitted as evidence to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. It did not address the statutory tests under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and several discrepancies made it difficult to follow. The Tribunal stood down to allow counsel to address these gaps with Mr. Sullivan.
7The Applicant’s Planner started his testimony by providing an overview of both the Subject Property and the Adjacent Property. The portion of the Adjacent Property that is proposed to be added to the Subject Property has been reduced from the original proposal to a revised lot area of 4,761.46 square metres (1.181 acres) and is adjacent to the northwest corner (“Annexation Property”). The consent application for the Annexation Property, if allowed, will result in a lot boundary adjustment between the Adjacent Property and the Subject Property through the addition of the land area covered by the Annexation Property to form a larger lot which is utilizable for the construction of a proposed accessory structure. The applicant proposes constructing an accessory structure on the Annexation Property for the storage of equipment and supplies for the property maintenance and additional space for hobbies like woodworking (“Accessory Structure”).
8The Applicant’s planner explained that the house and buildings on the Subject Property are located in the rear which leaves little space for the construction of the Accessory Structure. The front yard is not suitable for the Accessory Structure since the septic system is located there. Adding property from the Adjacent Property in the rear is not appropriate since a portion of the lands are designated Hazard due to the watercourse that runs through the lands and the slope of the topography is not suitable to the Accessory Structure. The lands from the Adjacent Property to be added to the northwest corner of the property are the best suited for the Accessory Structure.
9Both the Subject Property and the Annexation Property are located within the “Agricultural” designation of the Norfolk County Official Plan (“OP”). There are no natural heritage features directly associated with the Subject Property however the lands immediately to the north that form part of the Adjacent Property are designated Hazard due to the watercourse that runs through them.
10The Zoning By-law (“ZB”) zones the Subject Property and the Annexation Property “A – Agriculture” in Schedule A-37 Figure 2 of the ZB. This zoning permits one single detached dwelling and accessory uses, including agricultural buildings on the combined Subject Property and the Annexation Property.
pps
11The following planning evidence was offered on consistency of the application with the PPS:
Both the Subject Property and the Annexation Property have Class 4 soils, are not considered to be prime agricultural land and thus not protected by the PPS policies focused on the protection of prime agricultural land.
These properties are however located in a prime agricultural area where new lots are not permitted. The application does not propose the creation of a new lot but simply a minor boundary adjustment which is supported by the PPS.
The policies in the PPS addressing efficient land use are activated by this application. Expanding the Subject Property to the northwest is the most efficient approach to expansion to facilitate the proposed development.
12Based on this planning evidence, the Tribunal finds that the application is consistent with the PPS.
consent application- [Section 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec51subsec24_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
13The Applicant’s Planner then reviewed the consent application based on the requirements of subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Conformity of the consent application to the OP is the most significant. The OP prioritizes less productive agricultural land like the Annexation Property for non-agricultural development. Non-agricultural uses are permitted provided there is meet the criteria in section 7.2.2.j of the OP. All criteria are met according to the planning evidence. Consents to sever under section 7.2.3 of the OP are permissible for minor boundary adjustments as proposed.
14The planning evidence then dealt with the various criteria under 51(24) of the Planning Act:
Section 51(24) of the Planning Act
Analysis
the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality.
The Application will have no impact on the elements set out in the opening words of subsection 51(24).
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;
As per analysis provided in my affidavit and planning justification reports, the application complies with section 2 of the Planning Act.
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
The application is not premature and is in the public interest.
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
As per analysis provided in my affidavit and planning justification reports, the application conforms to the OP.
There are no adjacent plans of subdivision.
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
The land is suitable for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided.
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
This paragraph is not applicable as housing is neither involved nor proposed.
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
This paragraph is not applicable as no highways are proposed.
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
The dimensions of the lot are appropriate and represent the continuation and intersection of existing lot lines.
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
The applicable restrictions are represented in the conditions of approval, which are suitable.
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
This application does not involve any natural resources or features requiring flood control.
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
No new utilities or municipal services are proposed or required.
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
No school sites are required or proposed.
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
No portion of the subject lands are to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes.
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
This paragraph is not applicable as no new buildings are proposed.
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Planning Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
Plan of subdivision does not apply and this application is not subject to site plan control.
Based on the above, the application satisfies the criteria contained in subsection 51(24) the Planning Act.
15The proposed conditions for the consent application are identified in Appendix B. The planning evidence confirmed that they are all reasonable and typical for a consent application of this type.
16In summary, the Tribunal accepts the planning evidence relating to the consent application and finds that it meets the requirements of section 51(24) and the OP and is consistent with the PPS and should be allowed subject to the conditions identified in Appendix 1.
order
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Consent for the severance shown in the sketch in Schedule A is provisionally granted, subject to the conditions attached as Schedule B amended to replace the identified lapsing date with the lapsing date designated by section 53(41) of the Planning Act.
“A. Cornacchia”
A. CORNACCHIA
MEMBER
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.