Loading...
2017-109 2016-ZBA-02 (1748290 Ontario Ltd)The Corporation of the Township Of Oro-Medonte By- Law No. 2017-109 By-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 97-95, as amended, which apply to lands at Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte) Township of Oro-Medonte 2016-ZBA-02 (1748290 Ontario Ltd.) Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13; And Whereas Council deems it appropriate to rezone the subject lands to prohibit the development of residential uses, in accordance with Section C1.3.1 of the Official Plan. Now Therefore the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as follows: Schedule 'A24' to Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol applying to the lands located in Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, formerly in the Township of Medonte, now in the Township of Oro-Medonte, from Local Commercial (LC) Zone to Residential One Exception 278 (111'278) Zone, as shown on Schedule `A' attached and forming part of this By-law. 2. Section 7 — Exceptions of Zoning By-law No. 97-95, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection: "7.278* *278 — Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte) . Notwithstanding Table B1 — Standards for Permitted Uses and Section 5.20.2.3, on the lands denoted by the symbol *278 the following provisions apply: a) Minimum lot frontage: 5.8 metres b) Distance from side lot line for a driveway crossing a front lot line: 1 metre" This By-law shall take effect on. the final passing thereof, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended. Enacted Pursuant to Local Planning Appeal Tribunal for Case No. PL170910 Issued on April 30, 2018 Jan\,4tte Teeter, Deputy Clerk 0) a) O C O CV o 6 _� 60 Z O O !� CL � J U� Cn m F- 3 N m N N O N � r N N N b � b b N VO 4d b Ip b p Cces Moon V A� b 400. � Q N p � H lll4 p vbpi N O� r y 1 N N pm b b N b N N b ��• e N � N N b N N b N b N � O b M N A N M N Q m N m N N b b $�• (b•J N � N r N O to b N N b N N N O N N 00 I,- N O U ca J 'a O cL a w N J N 3 a) O N O (6 co CU a � w O ®a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d'appel de I'amenagement local ISSUE DATE: April 30, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL170910 The Ontario Municipal Board (the "OMB") is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Purpose: Property Address/Description Municipality: Municipality File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: JMC Stoneworks Ltd. Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 97-95 - Refusal or neglect of Township of Oro-Medonte to make a decision Local Commercial (LC) Zone Residential One Exception (R1*#) Zone To permit residential use and a reduced lot frontage 257 Moonstone Road East Township of Oro-Medonte 2016-ZBA-02 PL170910 PL170910 JMC Stoneworks Ltd. v. Oro-Medonte (Town) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: JMC Stoneworks Ltd. Consent 257 Moonstone Road East Township of Oro-Medonte 2016-B-01 PL170910 PL170911 Heard: March 13, 2018 in Oro-Medonte, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties 2 Representative JMC Stoneworks Ltd. Jennifer Coughlin PL170910 DECISION DELIVERED BY ANNE MILCHBERG AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL [1] JMC Stoneworks Ltd. ("Applicant" and "Appellant") has appealed the decision of Township of Oro-Medonte ("Township") to refuse the severance of 257 Moonstone Road (the "subject property"; the "subject lands") into two parcels, and a Zoning By-law Amendment (' ZBA") from commercial to residential use, with exceptions, for the new parcel to be created. [2] Mark Coughlin, one of the owners of JMC Stoneworks Ltd., the Appellant, provided non -planning testimony in support of the proposal. His spouse, Jennifer Coughlin, served as the Appellant's representative. [3] Neighbouring residential property owners Justin Laquerre, Lindsay Fitzgerald and Sherri Seibel participated in the hearing, testifying on their concerns regarding the proposal. [4] The Township did not appear at the hearing. At the Tribunal's request, Derek Witlib, the Township's Manager of Planning Services, testified as a friend of the court to provide information on the proposal, along with a recitation of the planning opinions contained in his July 13, 2017 report to the Township's Development Services Committee ("Planning Report") [Exhibit 1]. The Planning Report that he had authored had recommended that the Zoning By-law Amendment application be approved and that provisional consent be granted, but the Township refused the recommendations. [5] Also providing evidence focusing on septic beds and site drainage, at the Tribunal's request, were David Saunders, the Township's Manager of Development Engineering, and Garry McCartney, the Township's Chief Building Official. 3 BACKGROUND PL170910 [6] The L-shaped, 0.49 hectare ("ha") subject property is located in the Moonstone Rural Settlement area, designated as such in the Township's Official Plan ("OP"). The current Zoning By-law ("ZBL") designation of the property is "Local Commercial (" LC")" as the lands primarily face onto a county road (Moonstone Road East) that has some commercial businesses. Single detached residential dwellings are located to the south, south east and south-west of the subject property [7] The subject lands have 46.2 metres ("m") frontage on Moonstone Road East and 5.8 m frontage Line 8 North, but do not occupy the corner where the two roads meet (refer to map in Attachment 1 for location and layout). The narrow frontage on Line 8 North is created by a secondary, unused driveway ("proposed driveway"; "existing driveway") spiking off the bulk of the property. Mr. Coughlin testified that this driveway had once been required for access by a municipal fire hall on the lands many years ago. The fire hall is long gone, replaced by a single detached dwelling fronting onto Moonstone Road East, and a commercial building set back behind the dwelling. The driveway to Line 8 North is not currently used, and is grass -covered. [8] Mr. Laquerre's property is immediately north of the driveway at 5515 Line 8 North; Ms. Fitzgerald's property is immediately to its south at 5509 Line 8 North. Ms. Seibel's residence is directly across from the Line 8 North frontage of the driveway, at 5516 Line 8 North. [9] The Appellant proposes to sever the subject lands into two parcels. The 0.22 ha parcel proposed to be retained ("Parcel A") occupies the full 42.6 m frontage on Moonstone Road East and contains the existing dwelling and commercial building. No zoning changes are proposed for the retained parcel - the current ZBL designation, LC, would remain. Access would continue to be taken from Moonstone Road East. [10] The 0.27 ha parcel to be created ("Parcel B") would take its access off Line 8 North via the 5.8 m wide unused driveway that forms part of the lands. As the Applicant proposes to build a single detached residential dwelling on Parcel B, a ZBA is required El PL170910 to change the land use designation from LC to Residential 1. Additionally, because Parcel B would not comply with the minimum 30 m lot frontage required by the ZBL, a site -specific exemption would be required to recognize the proposed 5.8 m frontage on Line 8 North. ISSUES [11] Mr. Laquerre, Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Seibel raised the following concerns with the proposal: • perceived drainage problems resulting from changes to grade on the proposed driveway ("drainage and grading"); • perceived drainage and safety implications of the storage of snow removed from the new driveway ("snow storage"); • perceived potential damage to the septic tile bed on Mr. Laquerre's property ("Laquerre septic bed"); and • perceived potential damage to or removal of trees along the southern property line of Parcel B (Ms. Fitzgerald; "trees"). [12] Notably, none of these neighbouring participants were opposed to the idea of severing or rezoning the subject property for the construction of a new single detached residential dwelling. Their concerns all focused on perceived impacts from the proposed driveway access from Line 8 North. Mr. Laquerre suggested to the Board that access to Parcel B should be taken instead from Moonstone Road through Parcel A. ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION Planning opinion evidence [13] Mr. Witlib provided uncontroverted planning opinion evidence that the proposed severance and rezoning were consistent with the policies set out in the Provincial Policy 5 PL170910 Statement, 2014 ("PPS") and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 ("GGH"), and that they met the general intent and purpose of the County of Simcoe OP. In the case of the PPS, Mr. Witlib cited the proposal's consistency with policies encouraging infill development in settlement areas. [14] Mr. Witlib also testified that the proposal met the Township's OP. Referring to his Planning Report, Mr. Witlib provided a professional planning opinion that the proposed severance meets the Subdivision of Land policies set out in OP s. D2.2.1, in that the proposed new lot: "a) Fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained on a year-round basis... b) Does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road... c) Will not cause a traffic hazard... d) Has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and is compatible with adjacent uses... e) Can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal... f) Will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area... g) Will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates to the provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan... h) Will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the area... i) Will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other uses in the area." [Exhibit 1] [15] Of these criteria, the neighbouring participants took issue only with the proposal's compliance with s. 2.2.1(c) (traffic hazard) and s. 2.2.1(f) (drainage patterns). The traffic hazard concern was related to snow storage. 0 Drainage and grading PL170910 [16] Both Mr. Laquerre and Ms. Fitzgerald were concerned that the new driveway might be graded in such a way as to drive water, especially that from melting snow, onto their properties. [17] In response, Mr. Saunders, the Township's Manager of Development Engineering, filed a Preliminary Lot Grading Plan in evidence [Exhibit 11], the purpose of which was to show that the proposed driveway will have a very mild (2%) slope in one direction only, following existing grading and not changing relative to the current conditions. In addition, the drawing does not indicate any cambering of the driveway towards either the Laquerre or Fitzgerald property. [18] Among Mr. Witlib's recommended conditions for provisional consent [in Exhibit 3] is engineered lot grading, which would bring predictability and control to surface drainage. In the Tribunal's view, this would be a satisfactory mitigant. Snow storage [19] Exhibit 11 shows that the portion of the driveway access from Line 8 North wedged between the Laquerre and Fitzgerald properties is over 35 m in length. The driveway surface would be 3.5 m wide, bounded on each side by a 1 m wide landscape strip. [20] Ms. Fitzgerald was concerned that snow removed from the driveway would be dumped on her property given the narrowness of the planned landscape strip. The Board asked her whether the construction of a fence along the property line would be useful in keeping the snow off her property. She said that it would help, but that it would also make for an unwelcome visual barrier. In the absence of a permanent fence — none was requested by Ms. Fitzgerald, and none was offered by the Appellant — perhaps seasonal snow fencing, which is not solid or a full visual barrier, could be an option to help keep snow from the driveway off Ms. Fitzgerald's property. VA PL170910 [21] Ms. Seibel, who lives across the street from the entrance to the proposed driveway to Parcel B, was concerned that snow removed from the driveway would be plowed out to Line 8 North, potentially creating snow banks within the road allowance that could impede lines of sight for pedestrians and drivers. She was concerned that, even though the Township had a by-law (No. 2008-59) prohibiting the dumping of snow in public rights -of -way, it would not be enforced. [22] In relation to Ms. Fitzgerald's and Ms. Seibel's concerns, the Appellant admitted that once he developed and sold the dwelling on the lot to be created, he would have no control over where the new owner dumped snow. [23] The Township has a lot of snow in the winter, Ms. Seibel and Ms. Fitzgerald both noted. The Board acknowledges that their concerns about snow storage are valid, but finds that there are also valid means of control and mitigation (like snow fencing and by- law enforcement), and on this basis, there is no planning reason to refuse the proposed severance and driveway. [24] The Township should be aware that approval of the severance and the driveway to Line 8 North might require vigilance and active monitoring to ensure that snow is not dumped onto the right-of-way when the driveway is cleared. Trees [25] Ms. Fitzgerald expressed concern about potential damage to the row of mature trees on her property close to her lot line abutting the proposed driveway of Parcel B, during construction of the driveway. [26] Mr. Witlib testified that the protection and preservation of trees on private land is not covered by the Township's by-laws. However, the Tribunal finds that a tree protection plan, during construction of the driveway, respecting Ms. Fitzgerald's trees close to the property line, can appropriately and reasonably be included in the conditions for provisional consent. The point of the tree protection plan would be to safeguard against root and other damage to Ms. Fitzgerald's trees during construction. �7 PL170910 The plan would need to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Township's Director of Planning. Laquerre septic bed (27] Mr. Laquerre, whose residence abuts the driveway to the north, testified that he surveyed the location of his septic tile bed to check whether or not there would be a conflict with the driveway for the proposed new lot. In his estimation, the new driveway would encroach on the three metre setback required around septic beds specified by the Environmental Protection Act ("EPA"), and excavation to move existing boulders from the driveway would disrupt or damage the tile bed. He expressed concern that the effluent from his tile bed would seep horizontally into swales he thought would border the proposed driveway, and not percolate down to the water table. [28] In response, Mr. McCartney, the Township's Chief Building Official, testified that Mr. Laquerre's septic bed construction (in 1960) predates the EPA and is therefore not subject to the setback requirement. He also advised the Board that septic beds from that era were designed to not require setbacks. On the matter of new swales that might capture Mr. Laquerre's tile bed effluent, Mr. Saunders clarified that the driveway would not have swales — the grading would have a "sheet" profile -- and that construction of the driveway itself was not expected to create any subsurface disturbances or damage to the tile bed. [29] Based on the evidence from Mr. McCartney and Mr. Saunders, the Board finds that the proposed new driveway would not conflict with Mr. Laquerre's septic tile bed if constructed as proposed. SECTION 51(24) [30] Section 51(24) of the Planning Act ("Act") sets out thirteen criteria which must be considered in assessing draft plans of subdivision and applications for consent to sever. If any one of these criteria is not met, an application may be denied. N PL170910 [31] Though the Planning Report did not address compliance with s. 51(24), nor did Mr. Witlib in his testimony, the Tribunal obtained enough evidence in the hearing to undertake its own review of the proposal in relation to this section of the Act. Based on its review, the Board finds that the proposal complies fully to all relevant criteria in s. 51(24). Ia]XN69[a]►I [32] In light of the evidence of Mr. Witlib, Mr. Saunders and Mr. McCartney, the Tribunal finds that the proposal adequately addresses the concerns raised by the participants, that it represents good planning, and that both the ZBA and the consent should be allowed. [33] The form and content of the ZBA to be approved is shown in Attachment 2. This is the by-law recommended by Mr. Witlib [submitted as part of Exhibit 3]. [34] The consent should be subject to the provisional consent conditions set out in Attachment 3. These are conditions recommended in the Planning Report [and also form part of Exhibit 3]. They deal with standard matters such as cash -in -lieu of parkland, grading and servicing, the conveyance to the County of Simcoe of a 5 m wide strip of land on the Moonstone Road East frontage for road widening purposes, and other technical matters. [35] The Tribunal will approve the consent with these conditions, and in addition, will add the requirement for the Appellant's submission of a tree protection plan, during construction of the driveway, respecting Ms. Fitzgerald's trees close to the property line. The tree protection plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Township's Director of Planning. Condition 1 b. in Attachment 3 shall be amended to add the tree protection plan requirement to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Municipality and the Appellant. IGN: INN. [36] The Tribunal orders that: 10 PL170910 (a) the ZBA appeal is allowed, and ZBL 2016-109 is approved, in accordance with Attachment 2; and (b) the consent appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is to be given in accordance with the conditions set out in Attachment 3, with the additional requirement, in Section 1 b. of Attachment 3, of the Appellant's submission of a tree protection plan, during construction of the driveway, respecting Ms. Fitzgerald's trees close to the property line. The tree protection plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Township's Director of Planning. "Anne Milchberg" ANNE MILCHBERG MEMBER If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 5565 290 272 2w 26 6535 16 70 264 �a. 5626 y 256 GOC�`000 16 20 14 250 22 24S 12 41 23fi I, 7 ID 15 C 232 ba 7 n6 245 ,..:357'. 6 23 220 239 233 G 5 229 70 5515 4 7 2S � n Z N 3 217 5509 6 10 211 5516 5507 2 6 4 6 5505 fi 203 6 GSCO<• 3 4 9 10 2 O t• 12 6 (`et� 6 7 9 7 4 2 3 ® Lands to be Rezoned from LC to R1 *278 Other Lands Owned by Applicant ATTACHMENT The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte By- Law No. 2017-109 By-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 97-95, as amended, which apply to lands at Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte) Township of Oro-Medonte 2016-ZBA-02 (1748290 Ontario Ltd.) Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13; And Whereas Council deems it appropriate to rezone the subject lands to prohibit the development of residential uses, in accordance with Section C1.3.1 of the Official Plan. Now Therefore the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule'A24'to Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol applying to the lands located in Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, formerly in the Township of Medonte, now in the Township of Oro-Medonte, from Local Commercial (LC) Zone to Residential One Exception 278 (R1*278) Zone, as shown on Schedule 'A' attached and forming part of this By-law. 2. Section 7 — Exceptions of Zoning By-law No. 97-95, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection: "7.278* *278 — Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte) Notwithstanding Table B1 — Standards for Permitted Uses and Section 5.20.2.3, on the lands denoted by the symbol *278 the following provisions apply: a) Minimum lot frontage: 5.8 metres b) Distance from side lot line for a driveway crossing a front lot line: 1 metre" 3. This By-law shall take effect on the final passing thereof, subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended. By -Law read a First, Second and Third Time, and Passed this 131h Day of July, 2017. The Corporation of The Township Of Oro-Medonte Mayor, H.S. Hughes Deputy Clerk, Janette Teeter Schedule "A" To By -Law No. 2017-109 The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte ® Lands to be Rezoned from LC to R1'278 Other Lands Owned by Applicant This is Schedule "A" to By -Law 2017-109 passed the 13th day of July, 2017 Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Clerk J. Teeter Township of Oro-Medonte (Application 2016.ZBA-02) ATTACHMENT That provisional consent be granted, together with an easement for Bell Canada purposes, to Application 2016-B-01 to convey a parcel having an area of 0.2 hectares (0.49 acres) and a lot frontage of approximately 5.8 metres (19 feet), located on Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte, known as 257 Moonstone Road East, subject to the following conditions: a. That the severed lands be rezoned to a Residential One Exception 278 (R1 *278) Zone, to permit residential use and a reduced lot frontage of 5.8 metres and a reduced driveway setback of 1 metre, to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro- Medonte. b. That the applicant signs the Township's Memorandum of Understanding by which the applicant acknowledges the requirements and timing of matters that may include: payment of development charges, payment of cash in lieu of parkland, detailed design of a building or septic system, engineered lot grading, and water and sanitary servicing, on either the vacant severed or retained parcel; c. That the applicant pay to the Municipality a fee of $2000 as a parkland contribution for each new lot created for residential purposes as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution pursuant to By-law 2006-50 under the authority of subsection 53(13) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13; d. That the applicant transfer to the County of Simcoe an approximately 5 metre road allowance widening along the entire frontage of the retained lands adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) as outlined in the letter dated March 24, 2016 from the County of Simcoe Transportation and Engineering Department. e. That one copy of a Registered Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary -Treasurer which conforms substantially with the application as submitted; f. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality and for use for the issuance of the certificate of consent; g. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; h. That the Certificate of Consent be issued utilizing Form 2, Section 53 (42) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; and i. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.