Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 03, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004459
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1997, c.P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Lundy Potato Farms Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
The purposes are to sever a residence surplus to a farming operation, to prohibit the construction of a new residential dwelling and to permit a reduced lot frontage
Reference Number:
Z11-2022
Property Address:
295546 8th Line
Municipality/UT:
Amaranth/Dufferin
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004459
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004459
OLT Case Name:
Lundy Potato Farms Ltd. v. Amaranth (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1997, c.P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Lundy Potato Farms Ltd.
Subject:
Consent – refused by the Approval Authority
Description:
The purposes are to sever a residence surplus to a farming operation, to prohibit the construction of a new residential dwelling and to permit a reduced lot frontage
Reference Number:
B03-2022
Property Address:
295546 8th Line
Municipality/UT:
Amaranth/Dufferin
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004460
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004459
Heard:
January 27, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lundy Potato Farms Ltd.
Eric Davis
Township of Amaranth
Al Burton
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON JANUARY 27, 2023 and order of the Tribunal
Introduction
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) converted to a settlement hearing. The Parties having requested the same, prior to the commencement of this event, Lundy Potato Farms Ltd. (“Applicant/Appellant” or “Lundy”) filed two appeals against the Township of Amaranth (the “Township”).
2The first appeal was pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and is for the refusal of the Township to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), which would permit a residence surplus to a farming operation, to prohibit the construction of a new residential dwelling and to permit a reduced lot frontage for this residence.
3The second appeal under s. 53(19) of the Act is regarding the refusal of the Township to allow severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation.
4The property is municipally known as 295546 8th Line, in the Township (“Subject Property”).
5The Tribunal reviewed the Affidavit of service for the CMC sworn by Patricia Peter on December 20, 2022. It was marked as Exhibit 1.
6There were no requests for Party or Participant status.
Evidence and Analysis
7James Johnstone was sworn by the Tribunal. The curriculum vitae as well as the acknowledgement of expert’s duty affirmation was orally assessed. Mr. Johnstone was, as a result, qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
8The site context is generally visualized as per the Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Subject Property Context; original severance depiction of dwelling surplus to a farming operation
9Mr. Johnstone informed the Tribunal that the severance parcel, which was previously a “hockey stick” type pattern, was not positively accepted by the Township. He stated that, in the settlement, the parcel with dwelling surplus to a farming operation has been established as a regular rectangular shape. He also stated that the severance also would see the residential portion becoming closer to acceptable criteria for such severances. He stated that originally it was a 16-metre (“m”) frontage and 0.8 hectares (“ha”) in area. As agreed to now and before the Tribunal, is a 60 m frontage and 2.2 ha area for the dwelling surplus to the farming operations. He stated that the revised severance substantially overcomes the original reason for refusal regarding both the ZBA and the consent application, which stated that the “Proposed lot configuration does not meet zoning by-law lot frontage requirements”.
10Mr. Johnstone opined that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as it duly preserves and continues the farming uses for the prime agricultural area. He noted that the dwelling area will have associated accessory facilities including the septic bed area and the well.
11Mr. Johnstone opined that the County of Dufferin (the “County”) as well as the Township Official Plans permit severance of residence surplus to a farming operation. He opined that this was the primary aspect related to the appeals and as such, the proposal conforms with the County and the Township Official Plans.
12Mr. Johnstone concluded that the proposed ZBA and severance represent good land use planning through preserving prime agricultural lands for farming while allowing permissive continuation of an existing residence.
13The Tribunal having regard for the material that was before the approval authority when it made its decisions, the information on file and the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Johnstone finds that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conforms with the County and the Township Official Plans and represents good land use planning.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal to amend By-law No. 2-2009, as amended of the Township of Amaranth is granted in part and in principle as per Attachment 1 to this Order and that;
a. The Parties shall submit a final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment for Tribunal review and final approval within 60 days of the issuance of this Decision.
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS upon the consent of the Parties and pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Township of Amaranth shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
17This Member is seized for the issuance of the final approval for the Zoning By-law Amendment.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
ATTACHMENT 2
Residence surplus to a farming operation sketch and conditions
SKETCH
CONDITIONS TO CONSENT APPLICATION
Township file number B03-2022
OLT Case No. OLT-22-004460
OLT Lead Case No.OLT-22-004459
The Consent Application submitted by Lundy Potato Farms Ltd. (“Lundy”) shall be subject to the following conditions:
i. That Lundy pay all taxes in full;
ii. That Lundy pay the parkland dedication fee;
iii. That Lundy provide a site plan showing the existing septic system is located 3m from the new property line, or that existing septic system is decommissioned and future septic system is located at least 3 metres from the new property line;
iv. That Lundy provide a copy of the registered Reference Plan in digital format for the severed and retained parcels;
v. That Lundy obtain entrance approvals for the severed and retained parcels from the appropriate road authority, if required by the road authority;
vi. That Lundy complete a Minimum Distance Separation study to the satisfaction of the Township;
vii. That Lundy pay all costs associated with surveys, approvals, legal services and any other transactions pertaining to the application; and
viii. That Lundy fulfil all conditions within two years of the date of the Tribunal’s approval of the applications where failure to do so will cause these Minutes of Settlement to be null and void.