Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 20, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003185
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Maria Kechichian
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Seeking relief from Section 5.7 (Agricultural Zone Provisions) from Zoning By-law 2014-126 to reduce the front yard setback.
Reference Number: A03-22
Property Address: 6233 14th Line
Municipality/UT: New Tecumseth/Simcoe
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003185
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003185
OLT Case Name: Kechichian v. New Tecumseth (“Town”)
Heard: November 23, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel*/Representative Maria Kechichian Self-represented Town of New Tecumseth Colleen Butler*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON NOVEMBER 23, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by Maria Kechichian (“Applicant”) of a minor variance (“MV”) denied by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the Town of New Tecumseth (“Town”) for the property legally known as Part Lot 9, Concession 13, Registered Plan 51R31418 Part 1 (“Subject Property”).
2The Applicant applied to the Town for a variance from Zoning By-law No. 2014-126 (“ZBL”) to reduce the front yard setback from 12.5 metres (“m”) to 7.0 m in support of a proposed single detached dwelling on the Subject Property.
3Prior to the Hearing, the Town confirmed that it would not be calling a case in the appeal; however, Counsel would be attending the Hearing.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
4The Subject Property is 4.579 hectares (“ha”) in size and is situated on the south side of 14th Line. A significant woodlot covers the majority of the Subject Property. In terms of surrounding land uses, the Town's wastewater treatment plant and Depot 1 lands are to the west and the Briar Hill West (Cablebridge) Development is to the north, while rural residential, environmental protection areas and the Nottawasaga River are to the south and east.
5The Subject Property is:
a. currently vacant;
b. designated Rural, Environmental Protection 1 and Environmental Protection 2 Overlay on Schedule A to the Town Official Plan (“OP”);
c. zoned Agricultural (A1) on Schedule D to the ZBL; and
d. able to be serviced by municipal water.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
6In determining this appeal brought under s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”), it must be noted that this is a Hearing de novo. The Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the MV meets the following four tests:
a. maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
b. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”);
c. is minor; and
d. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
7In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires that Tribunal Decisions are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, as well as regard for the decision of the Municipality and the information that it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
HEARING
8Ms. Kechichian was self-represented at the Hearing and summoned Derek Abbotts, the Manager of Development Planning for the Town, as a witness; Mr. Abbotts authored the initial Planning Report which went to the COA. The Tribunal provided the Applicant with a fulsome explanation of the Hearing process.
9Upon review of his qualifications and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Abbotts to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
10The Tribunal received and marked the following:
Exhibit 1: Hearing Materials Maria Kechichian.
11For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal determines that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act have been met and that it is appropriate to allow the appeal and permit the proposed variance.
12Mr. Abbotts testified that, in his opinion, the application is consistent with the PPS and has regard for (or does not offend) matters of Provincial interest as outlined in s. 2 of the Act. He opined that the proposal would not infringe on any ecological systems, that it was an appropriate location for growth and development and that it represented an appropriate built form as a single-detached dwelling is a permitted use.
13Mr. Abbotts referred to s. 4.3.2, 4.4.2 and 6.2.2 of the OP and explained that the Subject Property is “presently vacant, the proposal is for a future single detached dwelling and accessory structure and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (“NVCA”) was circulated for comments and had no concerns with the minor variance application.” He opined that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.
14Mr. Abbotts explained that a single detached dwelling and accessory uses and buildings are permitted in the Agriculture (A1) zone and opined that the proposal seeks to reduce the minimum front yard setback but complies with all other requirements of the zone. He further opined that the “proposed 7.0 metre setback … will provide an appropriate area for amenity space, landscaped open space as well as an adequate parking area. In addition, the reduced setback to any future single detached dwelling will maintain appropriate sight lines along the 14th line….” Mr. Abbotts testified that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
15Mr. Abbotts stated that the proposal is “minor in nature since the requested front yard setback is to allow a single detached dwelling to effectively locate on the subject property while mitigating any adverse impact on the surrounding woodlot.” He explained that the NVCA had no comments or concerns regarding the application.
16Mr. Abbotts further opined that the proposed variance is desirable and appropriate as the owner is seeking to establish a single detached dwelling and associated accessory dwellings on a vacant property. He explained that the Subject Property is limited by the significant woodlot which covers the majority of the property and testified that the Town’s Engineering Department had no concerns with the proposed reduction in front yard setback.
17It was Mr. Abbotts’ overall opinion that the proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
18Based on the totality of the uncontroverted evidence, the Tribunal agrees that the proposed variance is representative of good land use planning, has regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and meets the four tests of a minor variance.
19The Tribunal recognizes that Municipal Staff recommended approval of the proposed variance. There was no contradictory evidence to the Municipal record, documents and materials presented to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had the benefit of the uncontested evidence of Mr. Abbotts.
20The Tribunal had regard for the decision of the COA as well as the information considered by it.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed and the proposed variance to By-law No. 2014-126 is authorized.
“S. Bobka” S. BOBKA 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.