ISSUE DATE:
July 05, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000619
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Matthew Paric
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request
Description:
To permit the development of a single detached dwelling and accessory structures on private water and wastewater services
Reference Number:
OP-2021-02
Property Address:
270 Burns Boulevard and 31 Winter Road
Municipality/UT:
Township of King/Regional Municipality of York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000619
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000619
OLT Case Name:
Paric v. King (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Matthew Paric
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
To permit the development of a single detached dwelling and accessory structures on private water and wastewater services
Reference Number:
Z-2021-07
Property Address:
270 Burns Boulevard and 31 Winter Road
Municipality/UT:
Township of King/Regional Municipality of York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000620
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000619
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Matthew Paric
Subject:
Consent
Property Address:
31 Winter Road/Plan 1579, Lot 15
Municipality/UT:
Township of King
Municipal File No.:
B-23-02
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001145
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000619
Heard:
March 21, 2024 in writing
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Matthew Paric ("Applicant"/"Appellant")
Alex Lusty
Township of King ("Township")
Tom Halinski
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant seeks a Consent, Official Plan ("OPA") amendment and Zoning By-Law amendment ("ZBA") to permit the development of a single detached dwelling and accessory structures. The proposed development includes a dwelling, garage, pool and pool house to be serviced by a private well and private sewage system. The Consent application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment ("COA") on October 11, 2023. The OPA and ZBA were separate applications and were denied by the COA on May 15, 2023. The Parties have now entered into a settlement agreement concerning both applications.
2The Applicant's land is municipally described as 270 Burns Boulevard, in the Township. The property has an area of 2.05 hectares ("ha") (5.06 ac.) and has a frontage onto Burns Boulevard of 10.0 metres ("m") (32.81 feet ("ft")). The property is presently undeveloped and contains dense vegetation around the perimeter of the land. A tableland area, 0.63 ha in size, exists toward the southerly limit of the property, and adjacent to 31 Winter Road. It is this area which is proposed to be developed with one single family residence and associated accessory structures and uses.
CONSENT
3The Applicant also owns land which abuts 270 Burns Boulevard to the west and is municipally described as 31 Winter Road. This property is 0.83 ha in size (2.05 ac.) and has 60 m of frontage onto the cul-de-sac termination of Winter Road. The property is developed with a single-family home and accessory structures such as a detached garage and outdoor amenity uses. It is proposed that a 7.37 m wide (24.1 ft) strip of land located adjacent to the north lot line of 31 Winter Road be severed and attached in title to 270 Burns Boulevard to serve as an alternate access to the tableland area where the single-family home is proposed to be constructed.
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
4The proposed OPA amends special policy 5.17.3 within the Township Official Plan by deleting the existing provision and replacing it with a new special policy. The defined building envelope located on 270 Burns Boulevard is also redesignated by this amendment by changing the land use designation from Village Natural Heritage System to Established Neighbourhood Area - Village Site Specific Policy Area 3 (V-SSPA-3). The OPA also makes a corresponding modification to the Parent Official Plan Schedule D1. The part of 270 Burns Boulevard that is not used for the building envelope will remain designated as Village Natural Heritage System.
5The new special policy 5.17.3 will permit development of one single detached dwelling and accessory structures to be constructed on private water and wastewater services within a prescribed building envelope. The proposed policy also recognizes that the access shall be from a minimum 7 m wide driveway from Winter Road. Further, a development agreement is proposed to be entered into by the landowner to formalize the details associated with its development, including, on-site planting, grading and servicing.
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
6The ZBA proposed to amend Zoning By-law 2017-66 by:
(a) Deleting the Environmental Protection (EP) zone as it applies to the development envelope on 270 Burns Boulevard and the area to be used as the 'new' access to the building envelope on 31 Winter Road and replacing it with the Residential Estate (RE-2) Zone, subject to Exception section 6.5.8.2. The site-specific development standards include:
i. A minimum lot area of 5,500 square metres (m2);
ii. A minimum lot frontage of 7 m onto Winter Road;
iii. Front and rear yard minimums of 160 m and 7.5 m, respectively; and,
iv. North and south side yard minimum of 25 m and 7.5 m, respectively.
(b) Rezoning the remnant parcel of 31 Winter Road from the Environmental Protection (EP) and Residential Estate (RE) Zones to the Residential Estate (RE-3) Zone subject to Exception 6.5.8.3 thereby putting in place the following site-specific standards:
i. A minimum lot area of 7,000 m2; and,
ii. A minimum lot frontage of 52 m.
SETTLEMENT HEARING
7The Parties were provided a written settlement hearing on March 21, 2024. The Parties provided a Notice of Settlement Motion, the Affidavit of Murray Evans, a copy of the Settlement Agreement, various draft instruments and the list of proposed conditions.
8Murray Evans is a registered professional planner. Included in his Affidavit is a curriculum vitae and a sworn Acknowledgment of Expert Duty. After reviewing the documents, the Tribunal finds that Murray Evans is qualified to provide opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. The settlement motion record, which contains the affidavit of Murray Evans, is marked as Exhibit 1.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Planning Act
9Murray Evans provided evidence to the Tribunal that the development proposal has regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the following most applicable considerations:
(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
10Murray Evans opined that, as addressed by the natural heritage evaluation that has already been completed, the proposed development will occur on tableland, and will not have any adverse effects on the form and functions of the nearby natural heritage features and will provide compensation for a minor intrusion into the protective buffer. Additionally, 1.24 ha of environmental lands are to be conveyed to the Township. As such, Murray Evans further opined that the proposed development has regard to the protection of ecological systems and functions.
11Murray Evans also gave evidence that the proposed development is occurring on an existing lot of record, with existing policy in place that has contemplated this land's residential development should suitable access be provided. He then proffered that by creating access from Winter Road, rather than traversing environmental features via a Burns Boulevard access, and making use of an existing lot, that it is his opinion that the applications have had regard to appropriate development and location of growth and development.
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
12Murray Evans provided evidence to the Tribunal that the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS") encourages efficient development patterns, and a mix of uses in municipalities in order to ensure that the short-term and long-term needs of residents of the Province are met. He included that the PPS also provides policies to ensure that the environment is protected.
13Murray Evans proffered that the following polices of the PPS are particularly relevant to the development proposal: 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.8.
14He proffered that these policies relate generally to efficient land patterns, preservation of natural features and natural heritage systems, the protection of significant wetlands, and the protection of the ecological function of lands. He further opined that the development proposal will result in one additional dwelling located on an existing lot of record, which is a form of efficient development.
15Murray Evans also provided evidence that the PPS requires that natural features, including significant wetlands and woodlands and their adjacent lands, be protected. Further, the natural heritage evaluation that was completed found a Provincially Significant Wetland and a Significant Woodland are located within the 120 m area of influence of the Subject Lands. He opined that, in applying the staked limits of the features and evaluating the proposed home construction, the natural heritage evaluation established a suitable building envelope on 270 Burns Boulevard wherein the home and the natural environment will be able to co-exist and would not adversely affect the form and function of the existing Natural Heritage System.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
16Murray Evans provided evidence to the Tribunal that the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("Growth Plan") provides a policy framework for managing and directing where and how growth should occur within the Greater Golden Horseshoe up to the year 2051. He stated that the Growth Plan primarily directs growth to settlement areas and promotes a diverse mix of land uses leading to complete communities.
17Murray Evans provided evidence that Schedule 'D1' identifies the Subject Lands as being within the Village of King City Village Boundary and that the Village Boundary is considered to be the Settlement Area limit of the Village of King City. He further opined that development within the Village Boundary/ Settlement Area is to be based on the principle of supporting the achievement of 'Complete Communities' that are designed to support healthy and active living, and meet people needs for daily living through an entire lifetime.
18He went on to state that similar to the policies of the PPS, Policies 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan contain policies intended to protect the environment for the long-term.
19Murray Evans opined that the proposed development allows for the gentle intensification of lands through the construction of single-family residence within a long-standing residential community, while preserving the ecological integrity and function of the lands that form the Natural Heritage System.
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
20The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ("ORMCP"), Murray Evans stated, contains policies intended to protect the long-term viability of the Oak Ridges Moraine and its functions. The ORMCP is an ecologically based Plan that provides land use direction and resource management for 190,000 hectares of land and water.
21Further, Murray Evans provided evidence that the Subject Lands are located within the boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine and are therefore subject to the policies of the ORMCP. The 270 Burns Boulevard property and 31 Winter Road are located within the lands designated as Settlement Area.
22Murray Evans directed the Tribunal to section 18 of the ORMCP which provides that;
The purpose of Settlement Areas is to focus and contain urban growth by…promoting the efficient use of land with transit supportive densities," and " ….providing for the continuation and development of urban land uses consistent with the growth management strategies identified in the applicable official plans.
23Section 7 of the ORMCP does provide that:
Nothing in this Plan applies to prevent the use, erection or location of a single
family dwelling if,
(a) the use, erection and location would have been permitted by where a dwelling was permitted by the prevailing zoning of a property by the applicable zoning by-law on November 15, 2001; and
(b) the applicant demonstrates, to the extent possible, that use, erection and location, will not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the Plan Area."
24Murray Evans proffered that zoning permissions existed on this property for the construction of one single family detached dwelling as of November 15, 2001. He opined that the use of the property proposed at 270 Burns Boulevard for single family residential purposes conforms with the polices of the ORMCP.
25Murray Evans further provided evidence that the Natural Heritage Evaluation which was prepared in support of the development proposal indicated that the construction of a home as proposed would not adversely affect the form and function of the natural systems near this property. As such, he opined that it had been demonstrated that the proposed homes and associated elements "…will not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the Plan Area" thereby satisfying the qualifying condition of section 7 (b) of the ORMCP.
York Region Official Plan 2010 and 2022
26Murray Evans provided evidence that the York Region Official Plan 2022 replaced the 2010 version (consolidated to 2019). Similar to its predecessor, the Regional Official Plan 2022 sets the direction for growth and development among the nine municipalities within the Region. He further proffered that many of the environmental protection policies of the 2010 Official Plan have been carried forward and expanded upon. He also added that the Regional Official Plan 2022 addresses the Provincial directives for growth, while prioritizing sustainable growth and protection of the Region's natural resources.
27Murray Evans opined that there are no unaddressed environmental constrains as shown in the Natural Heritage Evaluation. He also found the proposed development was not in conflict with any part of the either version of the York Region Official Plan.
King City Community Plan and Our King Official Plan
28Murray Evans provided evidence that the Town completed a review of its 1970 Official Plan, King City Community Plan, which culminated in the adoption of the Our King Official Plan in 2019. He further states that the York Region approved the Our King Plan in part in September 2020. However, at the time of application filing, appeals were filed with the Town with some of those appeals affecting the general land use policies which applied to 270 Burns Boulevard and 31 Winter Road. Given the shifting policy framework both the 1970 Official Plan and the Our King Plan were discussed by Murray Evans.
29Murray Evans gave evidence that The King City Community Plan contains a recognition by Township Council that 270 Burns Boulevard possessed tableland and the potential to sustain residential use. A special policy is found in section 4.2.8 stating:
It is recognized that the south west portion of Lot 1, Plan 65M-2392 contains some tableland. Should access become available to the site without intrusion into any environmental protection area or environmental buffers within this Community Plan, consideration will be given to redesignation of the tableland to permit a residential designation, subject to the studies required by this plan, including an Environmental Impact Study. An application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment will be required.
30He opined that the natural heritage evaluation prepared in support of the proposed development, concluded that the construction of a home in the area not generally constrained by environmental features, will not affect the form or function of the wooded or wetland features.
31The Our King Official Plan carried forward the policy direction of section 4.2.8 of the King City Community Plan, wherein it was recognized that the Subject Land contains tableland which could be considered for residential uses should an environmentally supportive access be provided. Section 5.17.3.1 of the Our King Official Plan provides:
That the south west portion of Lot 1, Plan 65M-2392 (municipally known as 270 Burns Boulevard) contains some tableland. Should access become available to the site without intrusion into any environmental protection area or environmental buffers within this Plan, consideration will be given to re-designation of the tableland to permit a residential designation, subject to the studies required by this Plan, including a Natural Heritage Evaluation or Hydrologic Evaluation. An application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment will be required.
FINDINGS
32Based on the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Murray Evans and a review of the appropriate materials, the Tribunal finds that the OPA is appropriate as it:
(a) Has regard to matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;
(c) Conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019; and,
(d) Conforms to the York Region Official Plan 2010 and 2022;
(e) Supports the principles contained within the Our King Plan of environmental protection, and creates the opportunity to add one additional, compatible home in an existing community. The Official Plan Amendment will implement the long-term expectations of the King City Community Plan and Our King Plan that a home can be constructed on the property's table land and that safe, appropriate access to the building envelope can be provided.
(f) Represents good planning in the public interest.
33Based on the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Murray Evans and a review of the appropriate materials, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA is appropriate because it:
(a) Provides appropriate development standards which will ensure that the natural environment is protected and that any future home will be constructed in a compatible location which will not materially affect the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties; and,
(b) Conforms with the Township Official Plan as proposed to be amended.
34Based on the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Murray Evans and a review of the appropriate materials, the Tribunal finds that the Consent Application is appropriate as:
(a) It has regard to matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) It has regard to matters of health, safety, convenience, accessibility and welfare of present and future inhabitants of the municipality, and well as other matters referred to in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
ORDER
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
the appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed and the Official Plan for the Township of King is amended as set out in Attachment "A" to this Order;
the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed and Zoning By-law No. 2017-66 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment "B" to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of King to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes;
the appeal pursuant to s. 53(14) of the Planning Act is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment "C" to this Order;
The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise in respect of the performance of the term imposed as a condition to the Orders coming into force and effect.
"A. Sauve"
A. SAUVE
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 A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C