Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003872
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: Matthew Dudman
Applicant: Alan Peter Pearson
Subject: Consent
Reference Number: B-75-21
Property Address: (Lot 39, Concession A)
Municipality/UT: Trent Lakes/Peterborough
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003872
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003872
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: Matthew Dudman
Applicant: Alan Peter Pearson
Subject: Consent
Reference Number: B-76-21
Property Address: (Lot 39, Concession A)
Municipality/UT: Trent Lakes/Peterborough
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003873
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003872
Heard: November 1, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Matthew Dudman (“Appellant”)
Self-Represented
Alan Peter Pearson (“Applicant”)
David J. Gowanlock*
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Mann AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
BACKGROUND
1This is a hearing of an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) granting consent for the creation of two residential lots at a property in the Municipality of Trent Lakes (“Municipality”) legally described as Lot 39 and 40, Concession A (“subject property”).
2The subject property is located in the Municipality within the County of Peterborough (“County”). The Appellant’s property is located in the City of Kawartha Lakes (“Appellant City”), adjacent to the subject property (“Appellant Property”) and is zoned General Industrial (M2) Zone.
3The Applicant had previously applied for the same consent in 2019 however the time to meet conditions had lapsed prior to the Applicant completing them and as a result had to re-apply. In both instances, the County had recommended approval of the applications subject to conditions.
4The Appellant appealed the decision of the County on the grounds that consideration was not given to the zoning of the Appellant Property due to it being located in a different Municipality. The Appellant believes that the Municipality’s Zoning By-Law No. B2014-070 (“Municipality ZBL”) provides for direction to provide setbacks from such properties as the Appellant Property, which if considered would not allow for the proposed consent.
5The Appellant operates his family-owned construction company, which began in 1980 and has been located at the Appellant Property since they purchased the property in 2016. The Appellant works in manufacturing, steel fabrication, rebuilding of engines, machining, welding and cutting material. The Appellant argued that a setback is necessary due to the potential noise emissions that would emanate from their property to the future residential lots at the subject property.
HEARING
6The Appellant appeared before the Tribunal self-represented and did not call any expert witnesses to provide land use planning opinion in support of his position. The Appellant was permitted to make submissions on his appeal to allow the Tribunal to understand his concerns.
7The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal with counsel however no expert witnesses were called. Counsel to the Applicant was permitted to make submissions on this matter.
8The following documents were entered into evidence for the hearing:
- Exhibit 1 – Applicant’s Document Book.
- Exhibit 2 – Municipal Record
POLICY REVIEW
9Due to the lack of expert testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal relied on the Municipal Record for its analysis.
10The Municipality staff report notes indicated that the subject property is designated Rural Area within the County of Peterborough Official Plan (“County OP”) and under the Municipality of Trent Lakes Official Plan (“Municipality OP”), the subject property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection. The proposed severed parcel is only designated Rural, and the retained lot is proposed to be Rural and Environmental Protection.
11Under the Municipality ZBL, the proposed severed parcel is zoned Rural Residential 23 (“RR-23”) and the proposed retained parcel is to be zoned Rural (RU-h) and Environmental Protection.
12A review of relevant policy was conducted in order to consider the Consent Application.
Provincial Policies
13The Municipality staff report indicates that the proposed consent conforms with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”).
14The following hydrologic and natural heritage features have been identified on or adjacent to the subject property: wetlands, lakes and streams, aggregates sand and gravel deposits. The Growth Plan states that development, including lot creation and site alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature will require a natural heritage evaluation or hydrologic evaluation that identifies a Vegetation Protection Zone. However, since the severed parcel is not located within 120 metres of these features, such evaluation was determined to not be required.
15The proposed severed parcel is within an area identified as Mineral Aggregate Resource – Sand and Gravel within the Municipality OP. The PPS restricts development adjacent to such resources with exceptions for instances where the resource use would not be feasible, the proposed development would serve a greater long-term or public interest and issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. In this case, an aggregate resource impact review was prepared in 2019 for the Original Application for Consent. The study, which was peer-reviewed by the County and Municipality, had concluded that the aggregate resources from the subject property had low potential for extraction and the report supported the proposed severance.
County Official Plan
16As previously discussed, The subject property is designated Rural Area in the County OP. The County OP suggests residential severance for land holdings in Rural Area should be discouraged in favour of development in settlement areas to promote orderly growth and development.
17The exception is made for severance in Rural Areas provided health unit, road frontage and access and minimum distance separation requirements can be met. The Municipality staff report indicates that these requirements have been met for this application for consent.
Municipality Official Plan
18As previously discussed, the subject property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection, with the proposed severed parcel to only be designated Rural.
19The Rural designation permits residential dwellings at a very low density. Echoing the County OP, the