Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 31, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004225
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: David Francis
Applicant: Mark Gauthier
Subject: Zoning By-law
Description: To permit severing the lot and creating one new lot in order to construct a residential dwelling.
Reference Number: Z06-2022
Property Address: 207 Ontario Street
Municipality/UT: Brighton/Northumberland
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004225
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004225
OLT Case Name: Francis v. Brighton (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Consent
Description: To permit severing the lot and creating one new lot in order to construct a residential dwelling.
Reference Number: B07-2022
Property Address: 207 Ontario Street
Municipality/UT: Brighton/Northumberland
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004226
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004225
Heard: February 17, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Mark Gauthier
B. Whitehead
Municipality of Brighton David Francis
J. Ewart* Self-represented
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement hearing in the matter of the appeals by David Francis (“Appellant”), pursuant to s. 34(19) and s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the decision of the Municipality of Brighton (“Municipality”) to rezone the property, municipally known as 207 Ontario Street (“subject property” / “subject site”) from Urban Residential One (R1) zone to Urban Residential One Exception No. 36 (R1-36) zone, in order to permit a reduced lot frontage.
2The Affidavit of Service was marked as Exhibit 1. The Settlement Proposal was circulated to the relevant Parties. The Applicant’s land use planner, Brian Whitehead, submitted an Affidavit of planning evidence (Exhibit 2). The revised development concept was agreed upon the Appellant and the Municipality on February 7, 2023. The Settlement Proposal agreed to by the Appellant and the Municipality are detailed in duly executed Minutes of Settlement.
SITE CONTEXT
3The subject property is located on the east side of Ontario Street within Part Lot 2, Concession B in the Municipality, and has 42.4 m of street frontage and is 0.24 hectares in size. The subject site is designated Urban Area on Schedule A to the Northumberland County Official Plan (“COP”) and is designated Residential on Schedule A Map 2 to the Municipality’s Official Plan (“OP”). The subject property is zoned Urban Residential One (R1) on Schedule A, Map 12 D of the comprehensive ZBL. The subject property contains a residential dwelling and a shed.
APPLICATION HISTORY AND BILL 23b
4On April 1, 2022 Mark Gauthier (“Applicant”) submitted an application to the Municipality seeking to sever the subject property, and an application to amend comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 140-2002 (“ZBL”) to allow for a reduced lot frontage of 14.0 metres (“m”) for the proposed lot. The minimum required frontage of 16.7 m could not be met due to the location of the existing dwelling being 15.6 m from the southern lot line. The reduced lot frontage will allow for the construction of the new dwelling on the proposed severed lot to be in compliance with all zoning provisions of the R1 zone. Part of the existing driveway on the retained parcel will be removed in order to accommodate municipal servicing, and to permit the severed parcel to be accessed by its own driveway. The retained lot will comply with the provisions of the R1 zone.
5In June of 2022, the Municipality granted provisional consent and passed a by-law to rezone the severed lot from Urban Residential One R1 zone to Urban Residential One Exception No. 36 R1-36 zone.
6In July of 2022, the Appellant filed an appeal against the approval of the Consent and Zoning By-law amendment.
7On December 19, 2022, the Tribunal issued notice to the Appellant confirming that he did not meet the criteria of a specified person or public body in accordance with Bill 23, and therefore does not have standing to appeal the consent application. As a result of the restriction of third party appeals under Bill 23, the Tribunal closed Case No. OLT-22-004226 (Consent application), but Case No. OLT-22-004225 (ZBA) remained open.
SETTLEMENT
8The Settlement between the Parties incorporates the following changes to the development proposal:
a duplex dwelling shall not be a permitted use and the following special provisions shall apply to the lands designated "R1-36" on Schedule A, hereto:
Minimum lot frontage: 14.0 m.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
9Mr. Whitehead was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence. He provided the Tribunal with his opinion and a thorough overview of the applicable Provincial and local planning policies. He stated that the proposed development is consistent with, and/or conforms to, the identified provincial and local policies. Mr. Whitehead concluded that the development, as proposed, represents good planning and should be approved. The Tribunal accepts the uncontradicted land use planning opinion evidence and approves the proposed ZBA.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2020)
10Mr. Whitehead explained that the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”) sets out a number of policies which should be considered. He specifically mentioned s. 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, and 1.6.6.2 of the PPS.
11The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development represents an efficient use of land and resources and increases residential density and contributes to a wider range of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based needs as outlined in the PPS.
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE, 2020
12Mr. Whitehead stated that the subject site is within a Built-up Area in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”). He reviewed sections 2.2.1.2, and 2.2.2 and concluded that the proposed development is located within the built-up area. The creation of a new lot and the development of a new residence will contribute to the growth projections/allocations for the GP.
13The Tribunal finds that the development proposal conforms to the GP.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN
14The subject property is designated Urban Area on Schedule A to the Northumberland County Official Plan (“COP”). Mr. Whitehead directed the Tribunal to Part 1, Section 4 and Part 2, Sections A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, C1.2.1, C1.4, and E1.5.1 of the COP. He opined that the proposed lot will be large enough to construct a single detached dwelling that will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
15The Tribunal notes that the COP has a minimum intensification target of 42% for the Municipality. The Tribunal finds that, although minor, the addition of the proposed lot will assist in meeting the intensification target.
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON OFFICIAL PLAN (“OP”)
16The OP implements the policies of the Province and the Regional Official Plan and is intended to serve as the basis for making land use decisions.
17On Schedule A of the OP, the subject property is designated Residential. Section 3.2.1 of the Municipal Official Plan states:
The lot area and lot frontage should be suitable for the proposed uses, shall conform to the provisions of the Municipality’s Zoning By-law…
18The subject site is located within the Urban Area district and a single detached dwelling is permitted under the designation.
19Mr. Whitehead explained that due to the location of the existing dwelling being 15.6 m from the southern lot line, the creation of the lot with 16.7 m of frontage is not feasible. Thus, the reduction of the lot frontage for the proposed lot was requested. He further stated that the retained lot is currently serviced by the municipal water and sewer services and the proposed lot will also be serviced by the existing municipal services, as outlined in s. 3.4.1 of the OP.
20The Tribunal agrees that the proposed development maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.
CONCLUSION
21In determining this matter, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Municipal records and the matters before Council, and has considered and accepted the uncontroverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Whitehead. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal is an efficient development of the subject site which promotes a liveable, healthy, and modestly sized development within the settlement area.
22The Tribunal finds that the development proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, conforms to the GP, and maintains the general policy intent of the COP and the OP. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest. The Development Proposal furthers the targets and objectives of the Provincial planning regime and enhances the residential housing supply.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law No. 057-2022 of the Municipality of Brighton is allowed in part, and is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and as amended is approved. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.
“P. Tomilin”
p. tomilin
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.