Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 23, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004120
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant/Appellant: Jeffrey Beaudrow
Subject: Consent – Conditions of Provisional Consent
Description: To create a residential lot
Municipality: Town of Georgina
Property Address: 76 Market Street
Municipal File No.: B3 - 21
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004120
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004120
OLT Case Name: Beaudrow v. Georgina (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject: Consent – Conditions of Provisional Consent
Description: To create a residential lot
Municipality: Town of Georgina
Property Address: 76 Market Street
Municipal File No.: B4 - 21
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004121
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004120
Heard: November 4, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Jeffrey Beaudrow D. White
Town of Georgina C. Kapelos
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON NOVEMBER 4, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Hearing in the matter of the Appeal filed by Jeffrey Beaudrow (“Applicant/Appellant”) related to the conditions set out in paragraph 3 (“para 3”) of the Notice of Decision of the Town of Georgina Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) related to a Consent application, pursuant to subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, (“Act”) concerning 76 Market Street (“subject property”) in the Town of Georgina.
2Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal has been advised by the Parties that a settlement has been reached.
3The Consent application has been approved and is not under the appeal, the Tribunal will only deal with the conditions to the application in today’s hearing.
4York Region advised the Tribunal that it would not be participating in the hearing, and no other Party or Participant Status Requests were filed with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.
HEARING
5Dan Stone, a Registered Professional Planner, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal.
6Mr. Stone has taken the Tribunal through the List of Conditions that are related to the approval of the Consent application as marked in the Exhibit 4.
7Mr. Stone explained that the nature of the Appeal was related to the surrounding development requirements on the Municipal engineering side. Mr. Stone took the Tribunal to the changes related to the Condition set out in para 3 and the revised Conditions.
8Mr. Stone concluded that in his professional opinion that all the relevant matters under s. 51(24) of the Act have been addressed, the Conditions are appropriate, address all the matters of public interest and that he is satisfied that the Consent application should be approved with the revised set of conditions to be accepted.
CONCLUSION
9In its Decision, The Tribunal has accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence of Mr. Stone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the revised set of Conditions is appropriate for the Consent application of subject property.
ORDER
10THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and Condition 3 is deleted and replaced with the Condition 3 as set out in Attachment A.
“P. Tomilin”
P. tomilin
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.