Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 15, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000144
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Tracey Ellis Subject: Consent Description: To sever three parcels of land for the creation of three new building lots Reference Number: D-10-ELL-16-24 Property Address: Valley Road Municipality/UT: Township of Cramahe/Northumberland County OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000144 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000144 OLT Case Name: Ellis v. Cramahe (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Tracey Ellis Subject: Consent Description: To sever three parcels of land for the creation of three new building lots Reference Number: D-10-ELL-17-24 Property Address: Valley Road Municipality/UT: Township of Cramahe/Northumberland County OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000175 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000144
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Tracey Ellis Subject: Consent Description: To sever three parcels of land for the creation of three new building lots Reference Number: D-10-ELL-18-24 Property Address: Valley Road Municipality/UT: Township of Cramahe/Northumberland County OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000176 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000144
Heard: May 7, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Tracey Ellis | Self-Represented* |
| Township of Cramahe | Spencer Putnam Tony Fleming (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON MAY 7, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This matter was originally scheduled as an appeal brought pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) from the deferral/denial from the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in the Township of Cramahe (“Township”), which is constituted by all members of Township Council. The appeal relates to applications for a Consent to sever three parcels of land, for the creation of three new building lots (“Application”/ “Appeal”). The Appeal was filed by Tracey Ellis (“Applicant”/ “Appellant”), regarding the property located at Valley Road, KOK 1MO, in the Township (“Subject Property”). The Appellant was self-represented.
2The Parties recently requested that the Tribunal convert this Hearing to a settlement matter (“Settlement”) on consent. Notice of this Hearing was properly circulated by the Tribunal, and for reference, the COA consists of the entire Township Council. There were no written requests for Party or Participant status for the Tribunal’s consideration.
3The Tribunal was in receipt of an Affidavit, containing a Witness Statement, signed by Victoria Heffernan (April 30, 2025), marked as Exhibit 1, and a Book of Policy Documents, marked as Exhibit 2.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4In accordance with s.3(5) of the Act, the Application must maintain consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), and have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act.
5With respect to the Appeal under s. 53(19) of the Act, to determine whether provisional consent should be granted (with such conditions that may be required), the Tribunal must:
a) Be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the Township and can proceed by way of application for consent;
b) Once satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary, regard must then be given to the various criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, including:
The Application must conform to the County of Northumberland Official Plan 2016 (“NOP”), the Township Official Plan 2024 (“TOP”), and must generally meet the intent and purpose of the Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 08-18 (“ZBL”);
The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and,
The adequacy of utilities and municipal services.
c) Pursuant to s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose such conditions as are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the Application; and
d) The Tribunal must also have regard to the decision of the COA relating to the Application and the information and material that was before it when making that decision.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
6Victoria Heffernan was present, on consent of both Parties, in her role as the Manager of Planning and Development with the Township. As a pre-candidate member of both the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners, with eight years of experience in the field, Ms. Heffernan was duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence as an expert in Land Use Planning.
7Ms. Heffernan first outlined that the currently vacant Subject Property consists of approximately 7.71 hectares (“ha”) along Valley Road with surrounding rural and environmental conservation lands, and a watercourse running from the southwest corner to the northern boundary, with approximately 75.31 metres (“m”) of frontage along Valley Road. Most of the Subject Property is zoned Rural (RU-2), with a small segment zoned Rural Residential (RR) along Valley Road, with portions along the watercourse zoned Environmental Conservation (EC).
8Other surrounding land uses, designations, and zoning references in Ms. Heffernan’s witness statement included the following:
North: Rural uses – Lands designated Rural (RU) and Environmental Protection, and zoned RU and EC;
East: Rural uses – Lands designated RU and zoned Rural (RU221/222/84);
South: Rural uses – Lands designated RU and Environmental Protection and zoned Rural (RU/RU-92) RR and EC; and
West: Rural/Agricultural uses – Lands designated RU and RU-2 and EC.
9Ms. Heffernan confirmed that the Application is seeking the Tribunal’s consent to sever the Subject Property into three separate parcels of land for the creation of three new building lots, leaving a retained lot size of 6.48 ha, and lots specified below:
| Lot | Frontage | Area | Structures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retained | 75.31 m | 6.48 ha | None |
| Severed Lot 1 | 46 m | 0.41 ha | None |
| Severed Lot 2 | 46 m | 0.41 ha | None |
| Severed Lot 3 | 46 m | 0.41 ha | None |
10Ms. Heffernan outlined that in the Planning Staff Report (“PSR”) submitted to the COA on January 28, 2025, which she co-authored, there were six recommended conditions of approval, noting that there were no written public comments submitted, and two oral submissions form neighbours in the area.
11Overall, the PSR recommended approval of the Application, which also met the legislative framework applicable in the circumstances (Exhibit 1, pages 5-8). Ms. Heffernan further reiterated these opinions during the Tribunal’s consideration of the Settlement. Ms. Heffernan clarified that while the PSR had recommended six conditions as part of its support for provisional consent, one additional condition (#7 below) was also required and formed part of the Settlement.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
12The Settlement between the Parties is based on the above-noted, three building lots and frontages, as submitted to the Township in 2024 and supported by the PSR. The Parties are now seeking the Tribunal’s approval of the Settlement and requested that the Tribunal allow the Appeal, in part, subject to the updated conditions that follow below:
That all taxes be paid in full to the satisfaction of the Township Treasurer;
That a Reference Plan (survey that is registered) be completed and a digital copy (in .dwg format) and a hard copy be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. A draft copy of the Reference Plan shall be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer for review and approval prior to registration of the survey;
Rezoning of the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the Township of Cramahe;
That a copy of the draft transfer/deed for the severed lots are submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
That the reference plan illustrates a minimum road widening of 10.06 metres (33 feet) from the centerline of roadway along the frontage of the severed and retained parcels. The road widening must also be free and clear of all encumbrances and deeded to the Township of Cramahe. All costs shall be borne by the applicant. Should the road widening be deemed unnecessary by the Township of Cramahe’s Public Works Department, the Public Works Department shall provide a signed document stating that the road widening is not required at this time;
That the applicant applies for and installs an entrance on each of the severed and retained lots to the satisfaction of the Township of Cramahe. All costs shall be borne by the applicant. Should an entrance permit be deemed unnecessary by the Township of Cramahe’s Public Works Department, the Public Works Department shall provide a signed document stating that the entrance is not required to be applied for at this time; and,
That all conditions provided herein have been completed within two (2) years of the date of the Tribunal’s Order as required by section 53(41) of the Planning Act.
13Ms. Heffernan opined that a Site Plan is not required, resulting from recent changes in legislation for a residential development of this scale. She asserted that the conditions, as stipulated in the Settlement, are reasonable and have regard to the nature of the Application, which should allow the development to proceed.
14Ms. Heffernan concluded that the proposed settlement meets the necessary legislative tests and recommended that provisional consent be given, subject to the conditions outlined above.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
15After careful consideration of the uncontroverted Land Use Planning opinion evidence in the detailed Witness Statement and oral testimony of Ms. Heffernan, in support of the proposed settlement, the Tribunal finds that the Application:
a. Is consistent with the PPS, and has appropriate regard to s. 2 of the Act;
b. Does not require a plan of subdivision for the proper and orderly development of the Township and can proceed by way of application for consent;
c. Conforms to the NOP, the TOP, and generally meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL;
d. Represents suitable land use for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided, including the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
e. Allows for adequacy of utilities and municipal services; and
f. Is representative of good planning in the public interest.
16Furthermore, regarding s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to impose such conditions that are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the Application. The Tribunal has also given regard to the decision of the COA relating to the Application, the information, and material that was before it when making its decision.
17Finally, the Parties were commended on their efforts in achieving the Settlement, and observers present were also thanked for their cooperation at the Hearing.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is to be given, as set out in Schedule A to this Order, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule B to this Order.
“Steven T. Mastoras”
STEVEN T. MASTORAS 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.
Schedule A
Schedule B
Consent Conditions
That all taxes be paid in full to the satisfaction of the Township Treasurer;
That a Reference Plan (survey that is registered) be completed and a digital copy (in .dwg format) and a hard copy be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. A draft copy of the Reference Plan shall be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer for review and approval prior to registration of the survey;
Rezoning of the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the Township of Cramahe;
That a copy of the draft transfer/deed for the severed lots are submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
That the reference plan illustrates a minimum road widening of 10.06 metres (33 feet) from the centerline of roadway along the frontage of the severed and retained parcels. The road widening must also be free and clear of all encumbrances and deeded to the Township of Cramahe. All costs shall be borne by the applicant. Should the road widening be deemed unnecessary by the Township of Cramahe’s Public Works Department, the Public Works Department shall provide a signed document stating that the road widening is not required at this time;
That the applicant applies for and installs an entrance on each of the severed and retained lots to the satisfaction of the Township of Cramahe. All costs shall be borne by the applicant. Should an entrance permit be deemed unnecessary by the Township of Cramahe’s Public Works Department, the Public Works Department shall provide a signed document stating that the entrance is not required to be applied for at this time; and,
That all conditions provided herein have been completed within two (2) years of the date of the Tribunal’s Order as required by section 53(41) of the Planning Act.