Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 07, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000089
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Ryan DeKairelle Subject: Minor Variance Description: To sever the land and create a separately conveyable parcel while maintaining existing development on the retained parcel Reference Number: A16-2023 Property Address: 99 Varty Lake Road Municipality: Stone Mills OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000089 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000089 OLT Case Name: DeKairelle v Stone Mills (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Ryan DeKairelle Subject: Consent Description: To sever the land and create a separately conveyable parcel while maintaining existing development on the retained parcel Reference Number: B59-2023 Property Address: 99 Varty Lake Road Municipality: Stone Mills OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000090 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000089 OLT Case Name: DeKairelle v Stone Mills (Township)
Heard: April 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Ryan DeKairelle | Self-represented |
| Township of Stone Mills | Spencer Putnam |
Memorandum of Oral DECISION DELIVERED BY gregory j. INGRAM on April 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns applications filed by Ryan DeKairelle (“Appellant”) seeking relief from Section 4.6.2(a) and Section 4.6.2 (b) of Zoning By-law 2014-744 (“ZBL”) to permit the creation of a new lot and retention of an existing lot at 99 Varty Lake Road, Yarker, Ontario (“Subject Property”) within the Township of Stone Mills (“Township”). The applications requested reductions for both the severed and retained parcels from 1.0 hectares (“h”) to 0.7 h and required lot frontage from 60 metres (“m”) to 33.5 m to allow the development of a single detached dwelling on the proposed new lot.
2Planning Staff for the Township provided detailed reports to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the Township of Stone Mills in support of both applications along with specific conditions that would have to be met by the Applicant at their meeting in November 2023. The COA denied the minor variance and consent applications.
3An appeal was filed to the Tribunal within the legislative time frame pursuant to section 45 (12) and 53 (19) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
4Discussions between the Township and the Appellant began following the commencement of the appeal process which resulted in a negotiated resolution. The Parties entered into a Minutes of Settlement agreement and requested that it be presented to the Tribunal.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
5Through the negotiation process, the Parties agreed on two changes to the original application to the Township. The revised proposal seeks permission to maintain a frontage of 45 m instead of the initially requested 33.5 m for the retained lot. The second change was identified by the Municipality’s Planning Staff who determined that relief in the lot area is not required provided approval of the consent application is made conditional on a hydrogeological assessment being conducted as per section 4.5.2 (i) of the ZBL.
EVIDENCE
6As evidence in the Hearing, two documents were marked as exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Emma Stucke
Exhibit 2: Minutes of Settlement
7On consent of the Parties, the written Affidavit of Emma Stucke was used as evidence in support of the appeals. Ms. Stucke is a Registered Professional Planner and is a full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners.
8On consent of the Appellant, Mr. Putnam led the Tribunal through Ms. Stucke’s uncontested evidence which supported the revised proposal for the Subject Property and aligned with the supportive reports of the Township Planning Staff.
[9