Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 24, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003978
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
Corporation of the County of Grey
Applicant
Gerald McGregor
Subject:
Consent
Description:
A request for consent for a lot boundary adjustment in order to convey an existing driveway to an abutting parcel.
Reference Number:
B03-2022
Property Address:
Adjacent to 154 Alfred Street W
Municipality/UT:
The Blue Mountains/Grey
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-003978
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-003978
OLT Case Name:
Corporation of the County of Grey v The Blue Mountains (Town)
Heard:
September 15, 2022 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Agent*
County of Grey (Appellant / County)
Erroll Treslan
Gerald McGregor (Applicant)
Self-Represented*
Town of Blue Mountains (Town)
Will Thomson
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
BACKGROUND
1This is a hearing of an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to granting consent for a lot boundary adjustment in order to convey an existing driveway to 154 Alfred Street West (“154 Alfred”) from lands adjacent to 154 Alfred (“subject property”). No new lot would be created as a result of the proposed conveyance.
2The subject property is currently vacant and approximately 4,956 square metres (“sq m”) in size. 154 Alfred contains a single residential dwelling and is 1630 sq m in size. The proposed boundary adjustment would convey 2016 sq m (“conveyed parcel”) from the subject property to 154 Alfred. The subject property would retain approximately 2940 sq m in area and maintain a frontage of 47 metres (“m”) onto Alfred Street West. 154 Alfred would become approximately 3650 sq m in area and maintain approximately 54 m of frontage onto the same street.
3The Town approved the consent for lot addition without inclusion of a requested road-widening condition by the County. The County appealed the COA decision in order to acquire the prescribed widening for the subject property and conveyed parcel. Notably, the County has no objections to the nature of the lot addition, but rather to the absent road widening condition. The County requested a road widening of 5.182 m along Alfred Street West.
4Lands surrounding the subject property are predominantly residential in nature, including a medium-density residential development to the east, low-density residential uses to the south, and a combination of vacant lands and low-density residential to the north and west. There is a watercourse and wooded area immediately surrounding the subject property.
HEARING
5At the outset of the hearing, the Town confirmed that it would not participate in the proceedings.
6The Appellant appeared at the hearing informing the Tribunal that he would be representing himself in the matter.
7The County, as the appellant in the matter, brought forward Becky Hillyer as their witness. Ms. Hillyer is an intermediate planner with the County who has provided comments on the original application. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Hillyer did not have a professional planning designation but did have the requisite education and work experience. The witness was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
8The following was entered into evidence at the hearing:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Becky Hillyer
Exhibit 2 – Applicant’s Letter
9The Applicant informed the Tribunal that they have owned the subject property and conveyed property since 1978. The Applicant was concerned that as a result of 154 Alfred containing the dwelling but the driveway being located on the conveyed parcel would lead to future issues as they are essentially living on two separate lots as if they are one. The Applicant feels that the actions of the County are unfair as they seek to take 5.182 m of land without any form of payment. The Applicant brought forward no other arguments in this matter.
10Ms. Hillyer provided her land use planning opinion as follows.
11The County has identified the area surrounding the subject property as an area for future growth. Alfred Street West is currently servicing low density use, however Ms. Hillyer opined that in the future it is likely that the area will take on a more urban fabric, requiring increased services, sidewalks and wider roads.
12Alfred Street West is designated as county local road in the County of Grey Official Plan (“County OP”). The County OP provides that county local roads are generally to be 30 m in width to allow for expansion of underground service, added turning lane and related needs. Policy dictates that where county roads are less than the prescribed size, the County will require, as a condition of approval for consent, dedication of lands for road widening purposes at no expense to the County.
13Direction from the County OP provides that the amount of lands adjacent to county roads will generally be taken in equal amounts from both sides of the road where practical. Alfred Street West, at the location of the subject property is currently 20 m wide. Ms. Hillyer testified that the road widening dedication amount was determined as a result of a field report prepared by transportation staff for the County.
14Ms. Hillyer informed the Tribunal that the road widening conveyance being sought by the County was for the subject property and conveyed parcel only, and did not apply to 154 Alfred. She noted that the County OP does not require dedication from a benefitting parcel of a lot adjustment.
Conclusion
15Having reviewed the expert opinion evidence of Ms. Hillyer, the Tribunal finds that proposed consent is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as the subject property is located within a settlement area and proposed development facilitates development that avoids risk to public health and safety.
16The Tribunal further finds that the proposed consent conforms to both the County OP and Town of Blue Mountain Official Plan (“Town OP”) as the proposed development retains the future development potential of the subject property.
17In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Consent conforms with the applicable municipal Plans and, correspondingly, satisfies all of the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, including subsection (c) as the proposed consent conforms to both the County OP and Town OP, and it otherwise represents good planning and is in the public interest.
18Furthermore, the Tribunal adopts the uncontested expert opinion evidence of Ms. Hillyer in regards to the requirement for road widening conveyance in connection to the consent application and implements the recommended conditions under the authority of s.53(12) of the Planning Act.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the following condition:
a. The Applicant shall convey a parcel measuring 5.182 metres along the frontage of Grey Road 113 on both the severed and retained parcels to the Corporation of the County of Grey, at the expense of the applicant.
“S. MANN”
s. mann
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.