Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 04, 2023.
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004745
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Ian Coyne Applicant: Andrew Hunt
Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Description: To permit residential uses of severed lands & to protect natural heritage features identified on the property
Property Address: 314 Whites Road
Municipality/UT: Brighton/Northumberland
Municipal File No.: Z18-2021
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004745
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004745
OLT Case Name: Ian Coyne v. Brighton (Municipality)
Heard: May 26, 2023 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel/Agent*
Ian Coyne (“Appellant”) Self-represented*
Andrew Hunt (“Applicant”) Self-represented*
Municipality of Brighton (“Municipality”) John Ewart
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS AND A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This is a hearing of an appeal of a municipal decision to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to permit residential uses at 314 Whites Road (the “subject property’s”) in order to allow residential development of three new lots (the “subject lots”) and a retained portion of land (the “retained lands”).
2More specifically, as explained by the Municipality and Applicant, the purpose of the proposed ZBA is to rezone the subject lots from ‘Extractive Industrial Exception No. 6 (EM-6) Zone’ to ‘Rural Residential Exception No. 55 (RR-55) Zone’ in order to address the permitted uses, reduced lot sizes, and to consider the development as a Type A Land Use. Additionally, as they explained, it also serves to rezone a portion of the property from ‘Extractive Industrial Exception No. 6 (EM-6) Zone’ to the ‘Open Space (OS) Zone’ as a means to interrupt a common contiguous boundary, and serves to rezone the retained lands from ‘Extractive Industrial Exception No. 6 (EM-6) Zone’ to the ‘Rural (RU) Zone’ and ‘Environmental Protection (EP) Zone’ to recognize the use as established in a recent Official Plan Amendment, to permit residential uses and protect the natural heritage features identified on the property.
3Council approved the ZBA at the same time it granted related severances.
4The ZBA is appealed by an area livestock farmer who contends that the proposed use constitutes a Type B use under MDS I guidelines, which would result in the ZBA running afoul of the PPS, Growth Plan and municipal OPs as it relates to agricultural policies and MDS setbacks in particular. However, the Applicant and the Municipality do not share this viewpoint and contend that the configuration of the lots, and introduction of an ‘Open Space (OS) Zone’ as a means to interrupt a common contiguous boundary of the subject lots and surrounding non-agricultural uses, means that the proposed use is a Type A use under MDS I guidelines, which would result in the ZBA not running afoul of these policies.
5At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal confirmed with all parties that the sole issue to determine is whether proposed uses, as facilitated by the proposed ZBA, constitute a Type A or Type B use. As a result, the evidence and opinions provided by the respective experts was scoped significantly to focus on this particular issue. The Appellant confirmed that he had no other planning grounds