local planning appeal tribunal tribunal d’appel de l

12
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(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Lower Trent Conservation Subject: By-law No. 2010-28 Municipality: Municipality of Centre Hastings OMB Case No.: PL101424 OMB File No.: PL101424 OMB Case Name: Lower Trent Conservation v. Centre Hastings (Municipality) APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel F. Santos G. Parker Lower Trent Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Centre Hastings W. Fairbrother Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL101424 Heard: January 12, 2017 in Madoc, Ontario and September 22, 2017 by telephone conference call

Upload: others

Post on 01-Oct-2021

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

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(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Lower Trent Conservation Subject: By-law No. 2010-28 Municipality: Municipality of Centre Hastings OMB Case No.: PL101424 OMB File No.: PL101424 OMB Case Name: Lower Trent Conservation v. Centre Hastings

(Municipality)

APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel F. Santos G. Parker Lower Trent Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Centre Hastings

W. Fairbrother

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL101424

Heard: January 12, 2017 in Madoc, Ontario and September 22, 2017 by telephone conference call

Page 2: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

2 PL101424 MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the decision resulting from a hearing through an appearance and

Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) before the Ontario Municipal Board, now the Local

Planning Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) regarding an appeal by the Lower Trent

Conservation Authority (“CA”) against the passage of a By-law by the Municipality of

Centre Hastings (“Municipality”).

[2] The purpose of the By-law was to allow the construction of a dwelling by

Fernando Santos (“Applicant”) on a property at Part Lot 14, Concession 7 in the

Municipality. However, prior to resolution of the appeal, the Applicant proposed that six

trailer sites also be permitted on the property in addition to the dwelling. The matter

before the Tribunal was a By-law (Exhibit 5) that included the zoning for the location of a

dwelling as approved by the Municipality and also included zoning to permit the location

of six trailer sites.

[3] The subject property is approximately 81 hectares (“ha”) in size and it is located

within a rural area of the Municipality. The property has frontage on Moreland Lake and

a provincially significant wetland (“PSW”) associated with the lake. The property is

largely forested with the lake and wetland being located along part of the western

property boundary.

[4] At the beginning of the January 12, 2017 proceeding, Marcela Rezac, Justin

Strong, Robert Sararas, and Bert Dafoe requested participant status which was granted

on consent.

ISSUE

[5] The main issue in this appeal is whether the By-law conforms to the Official Plan

as required through s. 24 (1) of the Planning Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal must be

Page 3: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

3 PL101424 satisfied that the By-law is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and

conforms to any applicable provincial planning policies.

EVIDENCE

[6] The Tribunal heard evidence, on behalf of the Applicant, from Shawn Legere,

Urban Designer/Planner with RFA Planning Consultants Inc. Mr. Legere is a Registered

Professional Planner and he was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in land use

planning.

[7] The Tribunal also heard evidence from the participants, Marcela Rezac, Justin

Strong, Robert Sararas, and Bert Dafoe.

[8] The Tribunal heard that the By-law proposes to rezone a large portion of the

property from Rural (RU) to Rural Exception No. 46 (RU-46-h) to permit the construction

of a single-detached dwelling on the property. The By-law includes a number of

conditions that must be fulfilled before the holding symbol (h) can be lifted including that

a Road Development and Maintenance Agreement be executed between the Applicant

and Municipality.

[9] In addition, the By-law proposes to rezone a portion of the lands from RU to

Recreation and Conservation No. 1 Zone (RE-1-h) to accommodate the six trailer sites

and associated facilities. The By-law includes a number of requirements and also

conditions for removing the holding symbol which include the execution of a Road

Development and Maintenance Agreement, that a site plan for the trailer sites be

approved, and a site plan agreement be entered into to the satisfaction of the

Municipality and the CA.

[10] The By-law also proposes that a small area between the trailer site and the lake

frontage be rezoned from RU to Environmentally Sensitive Zone (“ES”).

[11] The Tribunal heard that the CA appealed the original By-law mainly because an

Page 4: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

4 PL101424 Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) had not been completed for the proposed

construction of a dwelling. An EIA was subsequently provided and the CA was no

longer opposed to the By-law.

[12] The Tribunal heard that the Municipality held a public meeting on the amended

By-law and passed a resolution in which it took no position regarding the development

of the six trailer sites (Exhibit 1). The final determination on the suitability of the trailer

sites has been left to the Tribunal.

[13] Mr. Legere provided oral testimony and also provided written evidence (Exhibit 3)

regarding the amended By-law. Mr. Legere’s evidence was that the property is

predominantly designated as Rural with areas of Provincially Significant Wetlands and

Environmental Protection in the County of Hastings Official Plan. He indicated that the

proposed trailer sites will be within the area under the Rural designation and that no

change is proposed in the area identified as Provincially Significant Wetland or

Environmental Protection. It was his opinion that the proposed By-law conforms to the

Official Plan.

[14] Mr. Legere referred to an Environmental Site Evaluation prepared by Ecological

Services which supports the uses proposed in the amended By-law. The Environmental

Site Evaluation recommended a 30 metre (“m”) setback for buildings from the high

water mark of the lake and also indicated that a small floating dock could be constructed

into the water subject to the approval of the CA.

[15] Mr. Legere indicated that the amended By-law will rezone the majority of the

property as Rural Exception 46 – h (RU-46-h). The area of the trailer sites will be zoned

as Recreation and Conservation Exception No. 1 (RE-1-h) and a portion of the property

within the Moreland Lake high water mark will be zoned (ES).

[16] Mr. Legere’s evidence was that the provisions in the amended By-law will permit

a single-detached dwelling in the area zoned RU-46-h and will prohibit residential uses

in the area zoned RE-1-h. In the RE-1-h zone a private camping establishment will be

Page 5: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

5 PL101424 permitted with a maximum of six camping sites. The location of facilities and setbacks

will be controlled through the provisions of the By-law and the required site plan. It was

Mr. Legere’s opinion that these provisions and the controls implemented through the

amended By-law will appropriately limit the location and scale of the proposed trailer

sites.

[17] Mr. Legere indicated that the subject property is considered Rural Lands under

the PPS. It was his opinion that the development of the trailer sites would be considered

as a resource based recreational use under s. 1.1.5.2 (b) of the PPS. In his evidence,

Mr. Legere indicated that s. 1.6.6.3 of the PPS is addressed through the provision of on-

site sewage and water services. Also, through the Environmental Site Evaluation

prepared for the proposal and the incorporation of 30 m building setbacks from the ES

and EP zones into the By-law, Mr. Legere’s opinion was that s. 2.1 of the PPS is

addressed. Mr. Legere planning opinion was that the proposal that will be permitted

through the By-law is consistent with the PPS.

[18] With regard to the evidence of the participants, Justin Strong supported the

proposal and was not opposed to the By-law, whereas Marcela Rezac, Robert Sararas

and Bert Dafoe expressed concern about the proposal. The main issues raised by the

participants were concerns for increased traffic resulting from the proposed use of the

trailer sites, concerns about potential impacts on groundwater and surface water, and

the need to control the development of the property. Robert Sararas and Bert Dafoe

indicated that low well water levels are an issue, and Marcela Rezac indicated that there

should be a hydrogeological study for the proposal.

[19] The Tribunal heard that the proposed trailer sites will be serviced by one dug well

and a drilled well. Septic service for the trailer sites will be through two holding tanks.

The Tribunal understands that these facilities have already been constructed.

ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[20] After hearing the evidence at the January 12, 2017 proceeding in view of the

Page 6: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

6 PL101424 concerns expressed, the proximity of the trailer sites to Moreland Lake and the wetland,

and the intended servicing of the site, the Tribunal was concerned about potential

impacts on groundwater and on the lake. A hydrogeological analysis had not been

prepared and it was not clear from the evidence if one was required. The Tribunal

ordered the parties to consult with each other and provide further evidence to address

any hydrogeological concerns. The TCC was scheduled so that additional evidence

could be considered.

[21] Prior to the TCC, the Applicant provided a letter which indicated that a

hydrogeological study was not required because the proposal would not use more than

50,000 litres/day of water. Furthermore, an opinion letter was provided from Byron

Keene of G. D. Jewell Engineering Inc. which indicated that there was an adequate

supply of water for the proposal and which did not raise any issues regarding impacts

on the aquifer (Exhibit 10). An updated version of the By-law was also provided which

changed the number of the By-law exception for the RU zone from No. 46 to No. 49 and

also included a clause to limit the time of use of the trailer sites (Exhibit 9). These

changes had the consent of the parties

[22] The parties also submitted the Hastings County Director of Planning and

Development which indicated that the proposal meets the requirements of the Official

Plan.

[23] No issues about increased traffic resulting from the proposal were raised by the

Township or in the letter from the County. The Tribunal recognizes that there may be

some increase in traffic during times of the year when the trailer sites are in use.

However, the evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that this would be

significantly above levels that would be expected on roads in the area, or that significant

issues would be created.

[24] After reviewing the evidence and hearing from the parties during the TCC, the

Tribunal concluded that the evidence was satisfactory and that the By-law should be

approved. The planning opinion provided by Mr. Legere was uncontested. His evidence

Page 7: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

7 PL101424 was that the By-law is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the County of Hastings

Official Plan. This opinion was supported by the letter from the County Planning

Department.

[25] Based upon the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the natural heritage

features in the area and the potential hydrogeological impacts have been satisfactorily

addressed. Furthermore, the provisions of the By-law will assist the Township to control

the extent of development activities on the property. In spite of the fact that some

development activity has occurred on the property prior to obtaining approvals, the

proposed By-law through agreements and site plan requirements will put into place

measures to ensure that further development of the property is controlled.

[26] The Tribunal finds that the proposed By-law is consistent with the PPS and

conforms to the Hastings County Official Plan. The appropriate order is provided below.

ORDER

[27] The Tribunal allows the appeal in part and zoning By-law No. 2002-10 of the

Municipality of Centre Hastings is amended as set out in Attachment 1.

“C. Conti”

C. CONTI VICE-CHAIR

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

Page 8: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRE HASTINGS

BY-LAW NUMBER 2010-28

BEING a By-law under the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to amend Zoning By-law Number 2002-10, as otherwise amended, of the Municipality of Centre Hastings, with respect to certain lands being part of Lot 14, Con. 7, Centre Hastings

WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Centre Hastings passed By-law 2010-28 with respect to certain lands being part of Lot 14, Con. 7, Centre Hastings (the “Subject Lands”) as shown on Schedule “1” hereto, which Bylaw was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board convened a hearing on January 12, 2017 and the OMB has, pursuant to the provisions of Section 34 (26) the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended (“the Planning Act”), issued an Order amending Bylaw 2010-28 as set out below;

NOW THEREFORE BY-LAW 2002-10 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Schedule 'A1’ to By-law Number 2002-10, as amended, is hereby furtheramended as follows: the Rural (RU) Zone as it applies to Part Lot 14,Concession 7 is REZONED to the Rural Exception No. 49 Holding (RU-49-h) Zone, Recreation and Conservation Exception No. 1 Holding (RE-1-h) Zone and Environmentally Sensitive (ES) Zone for the lands, all asshown on Schedule ‘1’ attached hereto;

2. By-law Number 2002-10, as amended, is hereby further amended byinserting Section 3.25b after 3.25a as follows:

“3.25b Camping Establishment, Private

Shall mean a private camping establishment, not operated for gain orprofit, consisting of no more than six (6) camping sites and comprisingland and accessory structures used or maintained as grounds forcamping or temporary parking of recreational travel trailers, but does notinclude park model trailers, modular homes and mobile homes.”

3. By-law Number 2002-10, as amended, is hereby further amended bydeleting Section 3.160 and replacing with the following Section 3.160:

“3.160 Recreational Travel Trailer

Shall mean any vehicle so constructed that it is suitable for beingattached to a motor vehicle for the purpose of being drawn or propelledby the motor vehicle, or is self-propelled and is capable of being used forthe temporary living, sleeping or eating accommodation of persons forrecreational purposes, notwithstanding that such vehicle is jacked-up orthat its running gear is removed and for the purposes of this By-law doesnot include a mobile home, park model trailer or trailer as otherwisedefined in this By-law.”

4. By-law Number 2002-10, as amended, is hereby further amended byinserting Section 8.11.49 after 8.11.45 as follows:

“8.11.49 Rural Exception No. 49 (RU-49) Zone (Part of Lot 14,Concession 7)

Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-law to the contrary, within the

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

2

Rural Exception No. 49 (RU-49) Zone, the following provisions shall apply:

i. A single detached dwelling shall be a permitted residential usePROVIDED THAT an updated Environmental Impact Studyaddressing the location and impact, if any, of any proposedbuilding or structure must be submitted to and approved by theLower Trent Conservation prior to the issuance of a buildingpermit for any building or structure;

ii. The permitted non-residential uses shall be limited to following:a. Conservation; andb. Forestry.

iii. Minimum Lot Frontage: the minimum Lot frontage shall be the lotfrontage as it existed on October 27, 2010.

iv. Access to the RU-49-h zone shall be from an improved,maintained year-round road(s) in accordance with the RoadDevelopment and Maintenance Agreement executed andregistered on the title of the lands.

v. Vehicular and pedestrian access through the RU-49 zone to theRE-1 Zone shall be permitted subject to the prior written approvalof the Lower Trent Conservation.

vi. With respect to the lands shown on Schedule “1” hereto being re-zoned to RU-49-h (Rural Exception No. 49 Holding), a bylaw shallnot be enacted to remove the “Holding” (-h) symbol until suchtime as:a. A Road Development and Maintenance Agreement has

been executed and registered on title of the Subject Lands.The Agreement shall address, among other things: the

construction/improvement of the municipally owned roadallowances including the northerly extension of MorelandLake Lane and Slab Street from Moreland Lake Laneeasterly to and across the frontage of the Subject Landsbeing a length of approximately 2,300 feet to a year-roundstandard to the satisfaction of both the Municipality ofCentre Hastings and the Lower Trent Conservation (inaccordance with applicable Ontario Provincial StandardsDrawings and Lower Trent Conservation requirements); theprovision of security satisfactory to Municipality of CentreHastings to guarantee the satisfactory completion of thesaid road work and for 1 year after completion of such roadwork (the warranty period); timelines for commencing andcompleting of the aforesaid road work acceptable to theMunicipality of Centre Hastings;

b. Prior to the removal of the “Holding” (-h) symbol, no personshall erect any building or structure for any purpose withinthe lands zoned RU-49-h (Rural Exception No. 49 Holding)and the only permitted uses shall be Conservation andForestry.

vii. Upon removal of the “Holding” (-h) symbol by Council, the usesand zone provisions of the RU-49 Zone shall apply and all otherrequirements of this By-law shall apply to land zoned RU-49.”

5. By-law Number 2002-10, as amended, is hereby further amended byinserting Section 23.7.1 after 23.7 as follows:

“23.7.1 Recreation and Conservation Exception No. 1 Holding (RE-1-h) Zone (Part of Lot 14, Concession 7)

Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-law to the contrary, within the Recreation and Conservation Exception No. 1 (RE-1) Zone, the following

Page 10: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

3

provisions shall apply:

i. Residential uses shall be prohibited.ii. Additional permitted non-residential uses shall include the

following:a. Private camping establishment for a maximum of six (6)

camping sites.iii. Permitted accessory uses shall be limited to the following:

a. Uses, buildings and structures accessory to the privatecamping establishment, limited to one (1) storage garagewith a maximum of 55.7 m2 (600 ft2) floor area, utilities andsite services, patio, covered summer kitchen and one (1)floating dock.

iv. Seasonal Limitation: No Recreational Travel Trailer, building,structure, accessory building or structure, water supply system orsewage system shall be used or occupied in whole or in partbetween November 1 in any year and March 31 in the followingyear.

v. Minimum Lot Frontage Nil. a. Lands zoned RE-1 are contiguous to and shall gain

vehicular access through the EP Zones and RU-49 Zoneabutting to the south to Moreland Lake Lane.

vi. Minimum Setback from the ES and EP Zones - 30.0 m (98.4 ft)vii. Maximum Lot Coverage 1.0 % viii. Maximum Height of Buildings 6.0 m (19.7 ft) ix. Maximum Gross Floor Area of Recreational Travel Trailer

46.5m2 (500.0 ft2) x. The requirements of Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,

c.P.13, as amended, relating to Site Plan Control shall apply tothe lands zoned RE-1.

xi. With respect to the lands shown on Schedule “1” hereto being re-zoned to RE-1-h (Recreation and Conservation Exception No. 1Holding), a bylaw shall not be enacted to remove the “Holding” (-h) symbol until such time as:a. A Road Development and Maintenance Agreement has

been executed and registered on title of the Subject Lands.The Agreement shall address, among other things: the

construction/improvement of the municipally owned roadallowances including the northerly extension of MorelandLake Lane and Slab Street from Moreland Lake Laneeasterly to and across the frontage of the Subject Landsbeing a length of approximately 2,300 feet to a year-roundstandard to the satisfaction of both the Municipality ofCentre Hastings and Lower Trent Conservation (inaccordance with applicable Ontario Provincial StandardsDrawings and Lower Trent Conservation requirements); theprovision of security satisfactory to Municipality of CentreHastings to guarantee the satisfactory completion of thesaid road work and for 1 year after completion of such roadwork (the warranty period); timelines for commencing andcompleting of the aforesaid road work acceptable to theMunicipality of Centre Hastings; and

b. Final approval of a site plan and site plan agreementpursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act for the proposeddevelopment on the Subject Lands has been entered intoto the satisfaction of the Municipality of Centre Hastingsand the Lower Trent Conservation;

c. Prior to the removal of the “Holding” (-h) symbol, no personshall erect any building or structure for any purpose withinthe lands zoned RE-1-h (Recreation and Conservation

Page 11: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

4

Exception No. 1 Holding) and the only permitted use shall be Conservation.

xii. Upon removal of the “Holding” (-h) symbol by Council, the uses and zone provisions of the RE-1 Zone shall apply and all other requirements of this By-law shall apply to land zoned RE-1.”

6. Schedule '1' attached hereto forms part of this By-law.

7. This By-law shall come into force and take effect by order of the Ontario

Municipal Board in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Page 12: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l

EP

EP

RU

RU

RU

EP

RU

EP

RU

RU

RR

L o t 6 C o n c . 8L o t 6 C o n c . 8

L o t 6 C o n c . 9L o t 6 C o n c . 9

L o t 7 C o n c . 9L o t 7 C o n c . 9

L o t 7 C o n c . 8L o t 7 C o n c . 8WOOD RD

0 30 60 90 12015 Meters

Amended From the "Rural (RU)" Zone To the "Rural Residential Exception No.55 (RR- 55 )" Zone

Given First and Second Reading the 14th of January, 2015,

Finally Passed this __ th day of January, 2015

___________________ _____________________ T. Deline, Mayor P. Pilgrim, CAO/Clerk

Planning & Development Department Hastings County

Copyright © 2015 Queen's PrinterGeneral Reference Only

SCHEDULE ‘1’TO BY-LAW NO. 2015 - __

Given First and Second Reading the____ of ________, 2017,

Finally Passed this ____ day of _______, 2017

C. Martin, CAO/Treasurer

Amended From the “Rural (RU)” Zone To the “Rural Exception No. 46 (RU-46-h)” Zone

Amended From the “Rural (RU)” Zone To the “Recreation and Conservation No. 1 (RE-1-h)” Zone

Amended From the “Rural (RU)” Zone To the “Environmentally Sensitive (ES)” Zone

TO BY-LAW NO. 2010-28

ESFROM “RU” TO

R

Lot 14 Conc. 7

Lot 15 Conc. 7

Lot 13 Conc. 7

Lot 13

Conc. 8

Lot 14

Conc. 8

Lot 14

Conc. 60 100 200 300m

Metres

harrowj
Text Box
49
harrowj
Typewritten Text
49
harrowj
Typewritten Text
harrowj
Typewritten Text
harrowj
Text Box
harrowj
Typewritten Text
harrowj
Typewritten Text
49
harrowj
Typewritten Text
harrowj
Typewritten Text