Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 30, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003880
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Town of Wasaga Beach Applicant: Vladimir Danielian Subject: Consent Description: To sever the land and create a new lot in order to construct a residential dwelling. Reference Number: B06/22 Property Address: 68 27th Street N Municipality/UT: Wasaga Beach/Simcoe OLT Case No: OLT-22-003880 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003880 OLT Case Name: Town of Wasaga Beach v. Wasaga Beach (Town)
Heard: October 27, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Agent* |
|---|---|
| Town of Wasaga Beach ("Town") | Harold Elston |
| George Vadeboncoeur ("Appellant") | Self-Represented* |
| Vladimir Danielian ("Applicant") | Laman Meshadiyeva |
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 approve the granting of a severance to create one new residential building lot for a total of two residential lots at 68 27th Street North ("subject property").
2The subject property is located on the south side of 27th Street North and north of 28th Street North, west of McCague Street and east of Nottawasaga Bay. The surrounding neighbourhood is predominantly zoned Residential Type 1 (R1) and is occupied by single detached dwellings. The lot fabric of the neighbourhood includes parcels of land with frontages ranging from 15.24 metres ("m") to 24.38 m.
3The subject property has approximately 24.28 m of frontage on 27th Street North and a depth of approximately 45.76 m, with a total area of 1,116.5 square metres ("m2"). The proposed severed lot would have a frontage of approximately 12.19 m and a depth of 45.77 m ("severed lot"). The proposed retained lot would have a frontage of 12.19 m, with a depth of 45.77 m ("retained lot"). The following figure demonstrates the proposed severance:
4The subject property is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling, a shed, and a sea can. The Applicant indicated in their site plan submission to the Town, that the existing structures on the property are to be removed.
5The subject property is designated as residential within the Town of Wasaga Beach Official Plan ("Town OP"), is considered low density and is zoned Residential Type 1 (R1) in the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2003-60 ("ZBL").
6Although the COA approved the application for consent, City Staff had recommended denial of the application as they had found that the application for severance would not result in a lot fabric that is compatible or "fits" with the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area. In addition, nine letters of objection from the public were submitted, citing concerns regarding impact on the neighbourhood character should a precedent be set for smaller lot frontages.
7Following the decision of the COA, the Town and the Appellant appealed the decision to this Tribunal on the grounds that the application does not satisfy s. 51(24)(c) of the Planning Act ("Act"), as the application does not conform to the Town OP.
HEARING
8The Appellant and the Town were jointly represented by Counsel in this matter. Evidence in support of the appeal was provided by the Town and by the Appellant's expert, Samantha Hannah. Ms. Hannah is a planner for the Town and a candidate member for the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. She was duly qualified on consent of the Parties as an expert in land use planning.
9The Applicant had also retained Counsel, and brought forward one witness, Suzanne Reu. Ms. Reu is a real estate agent and former chair of the COA. Her testimony related to factual evidence in this matter; she was not qualified to provide opinion evidence.
10The following documents were entered into evidence for this matter:
Exhibit 1 – Appellant's Document Book
Exhibit 2 – Appellant's Additional Submission of Maps
Exhibit 3 – Applicant's Document Book
11Despite the public opposition to the original application, no requests for status were filed with the Tribunal on this matter.
ISSUES
12There was a general consensus between the parties that the application for consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 ("PPS"), conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 ("Growth Plan") and has regard to matters of Provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, as the proposed infill represents limited intensification and the efficient use of existing infrastructure within a designated settlement area.
13The Tribunal notes that the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act were all duly considered; however, it was found that s. 51(24)(c) was the crux of the issue and the other criteria set out in s. 51(24) were either not directly on point with the contested issues, or, that issues associated with the other criteria circled back to the same questions of conformity with the Town OP. As a result, the determination of the present matter ultimately turns on satisfaction of s.51(24)(c). Notably, the County of Simcoe Official Plan ("County OP") defers to the Town to set specifics of designation of lands; therefore, conformity to the Town OP is the key issue in this matter.
EVIDENCE
14In considering consent applications, s. 19.4.3 of the Town OP sets out criteria to be considered in addition to those set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. Ms. Hannah opined that the proposed consent does not conform to the following criteria set out in the Town OP:
s.19.4.3 (d) – Consents should recognize and have regard for the character of established residential neighbourhoods and should take into consideration the impact and compatibility of the proposed development with the existing built form and fabric of an area; and
s. 19.4.3 (e) – The size of any parcel of land created by such a consent should be appropriate for the use proposed considering the public services available, soil conditions, surrounding development, and neighbourhood character, and in no case shall any parcel be created which does not conform to the provision of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law[.]
15Ms. Hannah informed the Tribunal that a review of the neighbourhood lot fabric was conducted in relation to the application for consent. The review found that properties in the area had frontages ranging from 15.24 m to 24.38 m and lot areas ranging from 696.75 m2 to 1171.6 m2. The witness opined that the neighbourhood appears to have been built with a consistent lot fabric, with no lots having a frontage as narrow as the Applicant proposes for the subject property.
16Ms. Hannah did note that the proposed consent does comply with the existing ZBL but, despite this, does not comply with the Town OP.
17Ms. Hannah concluded her opinion, stating that the proposed consent does not comply with the policies of s. 19.4.3 (d) and (e) of the Town OP and would result in a lot fabric not "in line" with the neighbourhood and surrounding area.
18Ms. Reu provided factual evidence in this matter based on her past experience as a former chair of the COA. The witness noted a previous application for consent brought before the COA for a property located on Valerie Street. This application sought severance to create two lots of similar size to those proposed in this matter and was approved.
19Ms. Hannah had provided opinion in relation to the contrast between the matter at hand and the previously approved application at Valerie Street. The subject property and the Valerie Street property are located in different areas of the Town and have different lot fabrics. The witness opined that there already existed inconsistencies in lot fabric on Valerie Street prior to the granting of the past consent and as such, Valerie Street is not a useful comparison in this case.
ANALYSIS
20The Tribunal prefers the uncontradicted and uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Hannah in this matter. Ms. Hannah demonstrated to the Tribunal that, although the application has regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in the Act, conforms with the policies of the PPS, GP and County OP, the application fails to conform to the requirements of s. 51(24)(c) of the Act, as it does not conform with the Town OP.
21The Town OP is clear that when considering the granting of consent, consideration must be given to impact on the neighbourhood character as a result of the consent as well as to appropriate size of lot for the neighbourhood lot fabric. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Hannah's opinion that the proposed consent does not comply with policies 19.4.3(d) and (e) of the Town OP.
22The Tribunal found the evidence of the Applicant insufficient as no opinion evidence was provided and no justification could be provided for matters related to s. 51(24)(c) of the Act.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Consent does not conform with the Town OP, and correspondingly, does not satisfy all of the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, specifically subsection (c).
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and that provisional consent is not to be given.
"S. Mann"
S. MANN 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.