Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001912

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Norm Seeney

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. RU-280(H) - Refusal of Municipality to amend

Existing Zoning: Environment Constraint

Proposed Zoning: Site-specific

Purpose: To permit shoreline residential zoning in wetland zone.

Property Address/Description: Concession 10, Lot 12, Chandos Ward

Municipality: Township of North Kawartha

Municipality File No.: ZA-06-21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001912

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001912

OLT Case Name: Seeney v. North Kawartha (Township)

Heard: August 25, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Norm Seeney (the “Applicant/Appellant”) North Kawartha (the “Township”)

Counsel/Representative* Self-represented John Ewart*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON AUGUST 25, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (the “CMC”) on an appeal filed by Norm Seeney (the “Appellant”) against the decision of the Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha (the “Township”) Council, in relation to a Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) from Zoning By-law No. 26-2013, as amended (the “ZBL”) concerning Concession 10, Part Lot 12 in the Chandos Ward (the “Subject Property”).

2The purpose and effect of the ZBLA application is to permit the rezoning of a portion of the Subject Property from the Environmental Constraint (EC) Zone and Rural (RU) Zone to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The affected lands are measured to be approximately 3.29 hectares (8.13 acres). Part of the intent of this amendment application is to adjust the boundaries of the EC area to more closely fit with the extents of the identified wetlands and increase space for future residential development of a seasonal dwelling and dock.

3The Staff Planning Report advised, subject to additional environmental study, the requested amendment would not conflict with the prevailing planning policies. However, Staff recommended a holding provision on the Subject Property to ensure the additional environmental assessment is completed prior to the issuance of any building permits.

4The application came before the Council at a public meeting on July 13, 2021, at which time a decision was made to defer the application to gather further information. The application came before Council again on September 21, 2021, at which time Council denied the ZBLA based on several reasons, including: no information has been submitted that would ensure that there will be no negative environmental impacts on the wetland; appropriate environmental work has not been adequately completed to justify the request for rezoning; the EC zoning should not be changed, especially when there is no request for building permits; the passing of an amendment enabling the building of a cottage and a dock, by a ZBLA application, should not occur prior to all studies being completed.

Participant STATUS RequestS

5Upon the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal recognized ten (10) requests for Participant Status. The Tribunal was in receipt of and considered the contents of their statements. All of the Participants except for Ms. Moody were present at the CMC. There were no objections raised by either Party to the Participant requests.

6The Tribunal granted Participant Status on consent to Susan Canon, Robert Darlow, Reta Moody, Dave Price, Evan Rodgers, Andrew Skafel, John Sudnikowicz, Wanda Wierzbicki, Peter Gorham and Janice Reynolds.

NEXT STEPS

7Mr. Ewart, Counsel for the Township advised this matter was originally set for a one-day hearing on June 13, 2022, but due to insufficient notice, a CMC was scheduled for this date. In advance of preparing for this CMC both Parties entered into dialogue which has resulted in a strong potential for settlement.

8The Parties on consent proposed a one (1) day hearing in the fall of 2022. The intent of the Parties should negotiations result in a settlement, is to make the next hearing a settlement hearing in which Mr. Ewart will provide notice to the Tribunal. According to the Parties, this proposed timeframe will allow for continued negotiations with a strong possibility of resolution of these matters.

Mediation

9The Tribunal inquired about the need for Tribunal-led mediation. Mr. Ewart advised all Parties are committed to work together and there has been continued negotiations with the Appellant. The Parties are aware of the Tribunal mediation services, however, they are not required at this time.

Hearing dATE

10The Tribunal directs that a one (1) day Hearing will be held by video hearing commencing on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 10 a.m.

11Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901

Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889

Access code: 914-098-901

12Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line provided above.

14Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

CONCLUSION

15The Parties raised no further matters for the fair and expeditious resolution of this appeal.

16The Notice of Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1 and the Township Book of Documents was marked as Exhibit 2.

17The Tribunal Member is not seized