Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 21, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004763
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Peter Kaufman
Subject: By-law No. 2022-055 – Appeal of Council Decision
Description: To rezone a portion of the subject lands to facilitate the severance of three residential lots
Reference Number: Z-17-21
Property Address: 130 Maple Ridge Rd.
Municipality/UT: Georgian Bluffs/Grey
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004763
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004763
OLT Case Name: Kaufman v. Georgian Bluffs (Township)
Heard: April 6, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Peter and Kathryn Kaufman | K. Kaufman |
| Blair and Cherilyn Radbourne | D. Radbourne |
| Township of Georgian Bluffs | L. Dean* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON APRIL 6, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a hearing of the merits, following a Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) on March 6, 2023, in the matter of the appeal by Peter and Kathryn Kaufman (“Appellants”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the decision of the Township of Georgian Bluffs (“Township”) for the approval of Zoning By-law No. 2022-055 (“ZBL”) to rezone a portion of the property municipally known as 130 Maple Ridge Road (“subject property” / “subject site”) to facilitate development within the envelope of the subject property.
SITE CONTEXT
2The subject site is partially located within the designated Settlement Area on the westerly boundary of Balmy Beach, along the shores of Georgian Bay, and approximately 3 kilometres north of Owen Sound. The subject property comprises 31.25 hectares (“ha”) of land, including 2.26 ha situated in the designated Settlement Area of Balmy Beach. The subject site is characterized by a mix of forested lands and cash-cropping fields, with Indian Creek traversing approximately one-third of the rear of the property. The easterly portion of the property is mostly forested. To the north and east of the subject site there are residential lots, containing detached dwellings; to the west there are cash-cropped and forested lands; the Indian Falls Conservation Area is to the south.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND BILL 23
3Blair and Cherilyn Radbourne (“Applicants”) are proposing to sever three residential lots and to retain a fourth parcel along with the balance of the property. A detached dwelling would be permitted on each lot. All four parcels will be serviced with municipal water and individual, private septic systems. The Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) has conditionally approved three consent applications. One of the conditions of Consent approval for each application requires a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application to be in force and effect. The Consent applications are not before the Tribunal.
4The portion of the subject site that lies within the Settlement Area of Balmy Beach is zoned ‘RU’ (Rural) and ‘EP’ (Environmental Protection) in the Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The balance of the property falls directly under the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s Development Control Area. The proposed ZBA will rezone the ‘RU’ zoned lands to ‘R1’, a zone that applies to other residential lots within the Balmy Beach Settlement Area. A special provision would be added to the ‘R1’ zone in order to limit the amount of tree clearing to 0.1333 ha on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3, (for a total of 0.4 ha), and to 0.4 ha on Lot 4, as per the recommendation of the Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”).
5The proposed ZBA would also increase the amount of ‘EP’ zoned land as a means of protecting the natural heritage features identified on the site in accordance with the recommendations of the EIS.
6On August 23, 2022, the COA approved the three consent applications and on September 21, 2022 Council approved the ZBA.
7The Appellants appealed the decisions of the COA and Council.
8On November 28, 2022, Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 received royal assent. Therefore, the Appellant’s third-party appeal of the Consent Application has been dismissed. The ZBA is before the Tribunal.
HEARING
9Ron Davidson appeared on the behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Davidson 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.
10Jenn Burnett appeared on behalf of the Township. In her testimony, Ms. Burnett stated that she agrees with the planning analysis provided by Mr. Davidson.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2020)
11Mr. Davidson explained that the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”) sets out a number of policies which should be considered. He brought to the Tribunal’s attention s. 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.6.6.5, 1.6.6.7, 2.1.1 – 2.1.8, and 2.6.1 – 2.6.3 of the PPS.
12The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development will be located within the designated Settlement Area and represents an efficient use of land and resources and is appropriate for the level of servicing available.
NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLAN
13Mr. Davidson stated that the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) designates the lands as ‘Minor Urban Centre’, with an underlying ‘Escarpment Rural Area’ designation. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Davidson’s professional opinion that the proposed development conforms with the NEP.
GREY COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN (“COP”)
14The easterly 2.26 ha of the subject site is designated as ‘Secondary Settlement Area’ in Schedule A of the COP. The balance of the subject property falls under the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s Development Control Area.
15Mr. Davidson explained that in accordance with the EIS, the EP will be realigned and will permit a 0 m setback to the realigned EP zone. He mentioned that the proposed low-density, partially serviced development is permitted under s. 3) of the policy 3.6 ‘Secondary Settlement Areas’ of the COP.
16Mr. Davidson concluded, and it is his opinion, that the ZBA conforms to the COP.
TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BLUFFS OFFICIAL PLAN (“TOP”)
17Mr. Davidson provided that Schedule A-3 of the TOP identifies the easterly 2.26 ha of the subject property as being included within the ‘Tertiary Settlement Area’ as well as designates the subject site as ‘Residential’. The rest of the subject property does not fall within the planning area of the TOP. He opined that the proposed development is a low-density residential use. Mr. Davidson stated that the proposed development will be serviced by municipal water and will have individual private septic systems.
18In the opinion of Mr. Davidson, the ZBA conforms to the TOP.
19The Tribunal agrees that the proposed development conforms with the policies of the TOP.
TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BLUFFS ZONING BY-LAW
20Mr. Davidson opined that the subject site under the ZBA falls under the ‘RU’ and ‘EP’ zones, with the remainder of the subject site being under the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s Development Control Area. The ZBA would rezone the subject property from RU to R1 and the requirement for the lot frontage and the lot area are met by the proposed development. Further, the ZBA increases the amount of ‘EP’ zoned land, protecting the natural heritage features, as was recommended by the EIS.
21The ZBA has a special provision to the proposed ‘R1’ zone that limits the amount of tree clearing to 0.1333 ha on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and to 0.4 ha of Lot 4, as was suggested by the EIS.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
22The Appellants told the Tribunal that they disagree with the decision of Council to approve a ZBA to rezone a part of the subject property. Ms. Kaufman acted as a representative of her husband and made submissions on his behalf. Given that the Appellants are self-represented, and are new to their role, the Tribunal explained to them that they are only allowed to submit factual evidence within the context of their knowledge. Because the Appellants did not have any expert witnesses and were not qualified to give such, the Tribunal precluded them from providing any evidence in the various fields that are outside of their general knowledge.
23In the final version of the Issues List (“IL”) the Appellants listed scale of the proposed development, compatibility and the protection of the abutting uses.
24Both Mr. Davidson and Ms. Burnett addressed the Appellants issues in their oral and written testimony. The lot sizes and lot frontages are part of the Consent application and do not form part of the ZBA process.
25Ms. Burnett explained that the maximum lot coverage will be addressed during the building permit application stage and that the ZBA would facilitate development at a scale that is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
26Mr. Davidson added that the proposed lots are not out of character with the existing properties in the neighbourhood in terms of lot area and frontage. Given that there are over 70 residences in the close proximity to the subject site, Mr. Davidson is of the opinion that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding building context.
27As to the issue of the abutting uses, as part of the ZBA approval the Applicants conducted all the required studies and none of the expert reports suggested that the proposed ZBA would have any negative impacts on existing conditions in the adjacent subdivision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
28In determining this matter, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the decision of the approval authority, and the Township staff Planning Report, and has considered and accepted the uncontroverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Davidson and Ms. Burnett. The Appellants did not tender any land use planning or expert opinion evidence to counter the evidence provided by the Applicant’s and Township’s expert planners.
CONCLUSION
29The Tribunal finds the uncontested evidence of the Applicants’ and Township’s experts to be persuasive in demonstrating that the development proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, conforms to the NEP, and conforms with the general policy intent of the COP and TOP. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, pursuant to s. 2 of the Act.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law No. 2020-020 of the Township of Georgian Bluffs 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.