Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Severances

  1. Curtis v. Town of The Blue Mountains

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants applied for and were granted a consent to sever their lands. The proposal was to create a new 576 square metre vacant residential lot with a retained lot of 3,091 square metres. A neighbour appealed the decision on the basis that the consent does not conform to the Town’s Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal is dismissed.


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the evidence supports the granting of a provisional consent, with conditions, for a new lot as requested. The Board finds that the proposal complies with the Town’s Official Plan policies, as laid out in the evidence. The Board finds that the PPS, the County Official Plan and the Town Official Plan all encourage growth in primary settlement areas through intensification and infilling, such as this proposal.


    Document(s):



  2. Town of Shelburne and Ice River Springs Water Co. Inc. v. Township of Amaranth

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant applied for and was granted approval of the creation of two one hectare lots in the northern portion of the property, in the Township of Amaranth. These two lots front on a County Road which separates the Township of Amaranth from the Town of Shelburne, directly across from the Shelburne Industrial Park. They are also adjacent to a wetland, floodplain and a water feature and within a large area identified as a Significant Habitat. Council’s decision was appealed by the Appellants to the Ontario Municipal Board.


    Held:

    Consent for the Severances is denied and the appeals are allowed.


    Reasons:

    The Official Plan states: “Proposals for new development shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent land uses include noise, odour, dust, traffic…”. The Board did not find that the existing and future industry are compatible with the proposed lots and the consents do not adhere to land use compatibility. Natural Heritage and Significant Habitat: The language and requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment is clear and mandatory. No such assessment was completed in this case. Growth Management: With respect to Rural Lands, limited residential development is to occur. The Official Plan includes criteria for a specific number of lots to be created on an annual basis, and these applications do not conform strictly to those numbers.


    Document(s):



  3. Jones v. Township of Seguin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal by the Applicant was made against the failure of the Committee of Adjustment of the Township of Seguin to approve an application for three new lots and against the approval by the Township of Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2006-125 with regard to a waterfront property at 189 Isabella Lake. The proposal was to create three parcels from the subject property which will divide the property into four seasonal residential lots with frontage on Lake Isabella. Issues included access on a private road and recreational carrying capacity.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed.


    Reasons:

    The Board made a finding that the Clergy Principle, modified by James Dick, required that the applications would be tested against the policies in force at the time of application, and that while subsequent policies could be considered, they would not be determinative. The Board concluded that the consent applications do not conform to the Official Plan and they do not have appropriate regard for s. 51 (24) of the Planning Act. Approval of the application would be contrary to the intent of the Official Plan to limit development of waterfront areas on Lake Isabella. The Official Plan policies with regard to access were not achieved because access would be provided on a private road over which a proper registered right of way does not exist. With regard to the zoning appeal, the Board found that it is appropriate to place the lands into the Limited Service Residential zone, where land is not accessed by a public road.


    Document(s):



  4. Bayou Cable Park v. Township of Amaranth and Amaranth Alliance for Rural Preservation Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Recreational Development, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is an appeal by Bayou Cable Park Inc. and the owner Brennan Grange from the refusal by the Township of Amaranth of his request for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent to sever for the purposes of establishing a wakeboard facility on his property on 20 sideroad. The appeal also includes the failure to make a decision on the site plan application. The proposal is to sever and rezone the western portion of the property that contains a lake from Rural to Recreational to permit the commercial wakeboarding operation and to retain the eastern portion of the property where the Appellant has his home, a single detached residential dwelling and accessory building. Issues raised included the interpretation of minimum distance separation (MDS) policies, noise levels, and general compatibility in the rural area.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the day to day activities and special events is not a passive recreational activity, as there are 300 people expected to attend and where there will be a PA system. An active recreational use is not compatible with the surrounding rural and agricultural uses, and as such, is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Growth Plan or the Official Plan. The Board also finds that the proposed use exceeds the scale and intensity intended by the Official Plan for a passive recreational use. Further, the proposed consent does not conform to the Township Official Plan due to the incompatibility of use on the retained and severed lands with respect to noise; it is not good planning to approve a consent and use that will lead to future incompatibility; and finally, the consent is premature and not in the public interest.


    Document(s):



  5. Hamilton v. Correia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Costs, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Joseph Hamilton seeks costs against Richard Correia arising from a hearing in which Mr. Correia appealed against a severance granted to Mr. Hamilton by the Committee of Adjustment for a property in the Town of Wasaga Beach. In a decision issued on May 28, 2013, the Board found in favour of Mr. Hamilton. The amount Mr. Hamilton is seeking is not stated directly in his Motion, but his counsel indicates in accompanying documentation that Mr. Hamilton claims is $8,241.57 in legal and planning expenses.


    Held:

    Motion for costs dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board’s rules do not provide leeway to award costs when a party’s conduct has been found to be reasonable, but resulted in “inconvenience and financial loss for other parties.” Further, an appellant is under no obligation to provide expert witnesses. Failure to present evidence can be considered to constitute frivolous or vexatious behaviour and worthy of the awarding of costs, but does not apply in this case.


    Document(s):



  6. St. John’s Evangelical Latvian Lutheran Church v. Township of Essa

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    St. John’s appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing provisional consent to sever one new lot of approximately 7 hectare from a total land parcel of approximately 28 ha at the subject property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the application conforms to the County Official Plan and the OP, and complies with all applicable provisions of the ZBL. The Board also stated that the Provincial Policy Statement clearly outlined that severance of the lots comprises development and therefore, provisional consent is possible, but only if the conditions proposed by the NVCA and Township are met.


    Document(s):



  7. Smejkal v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a telephone conference settlement hearing with respect to appeals by Robert and Leslie Smejkal of the decisions by the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment to grant provisional consent, subject to conditions, and to authorize minor variances for the subject property. In 2009, the Applicants filed applications for consent to sever and permit minor variances for both Lots, in order to permit the construction of a single detached residential dwelling on part of the first Lot, and to recognize a legal off-street parking space for the existing single detached dwelling on the second Lot.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot line adjustment (severance) implements the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Guelph Official Plan, and represents good planning. The proposed variances conform to the overall goals of the Official Plan and maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, will not result in the creation of adverse impacts, and are minor in nature. The Board further finds that these planning applications, subject to the conditions of the proposed Settlement, satisfy the criteria set out in subsections 51(24) and 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  8. 1066517 Ontario Inc. v. Township of Grey Highlands

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The first Pre-hearing Conference to consider procedural matters for the hearing which will deal with appeals filed by 1066517 Ontario Inc. on Council’s refusal to approve its application for Official Plan Amendment, rezoning and consent, seeking to permit a commercial enterprise and other commercial uses at a 1.4 ha parcel.


    Held:

    Hearing is scheduled for future date


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



  9. Rowan v. Town of Erin

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant/Applicant owns property approximately 40.9 hectares and is zoned agricultural and environmental protection. She seeks to sever a 1.1 hectare parcel with the intention of creating a new residential lot. The County’s Land Division Committee refused her severance application and the matter is now before the Board on appeal. The Town’s planning staff reviewed the severance application and did not support the proposed severance.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds the evidence of the Town’s planner to be uncontroverted and unchallenged. The Appellant/Applicant’s evidence was the only planning evidence given at the hearing and the Board accepts her evidence. While the Board may be sympathetic to the reasons given by the Applicant in seeking the severance, financial security is not planning evidence. The Board is required to decide on the planning merits of an appeal before it. Further, the agricultural severance policies of the county and the Town’s Official Plan also address new residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas and the conditions upon which they will be allowed. The Applicant’s proposal does not meet these criteria nor does it appropriately address the criteria found in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  10. Maile v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicant applied for three severances in order to sever and add to the abutting lot to create two additional lots. The application involved two parcels of land. The other property is a 34-acre rural lot, which is vacant and the Applicant has an existing cottage and sleeping cabin. The Township’s Committee of Adjustment allowed the severances subject to eight conditions. The applicant is appealing condition 7 which reads: “That either a minimum setback of 300 feet be imposed from the proposed southerly lot lines of Maile retained lot #1, Strivens retained lot #1, and Maile severed lot #2, or an area of this depth be rezoned Open Space (OS2), or lot lines be reconfigured to these points.”


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that the lots which are the subject of Condition 7 are rural lots, as they are currently zoned, that they are neither physically nor functionally related to the water and are not, therefore waterfront lots. The Board finds that there is no conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement with the deletion of Condition 7, and that the subject lots comply with the Rural policy for both the District and Township Official Plan.


    Document(s):



  11. Town of Gravenhurst v. 670409 Ontario Limited

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The subject property is approximately 11.1 acres in size and fronts onto Morrison Lake and Morrison Creek. The proposal is for a new road to be constructed by the applicant. These large lots provide flexibility in the location of dwellings and septic tile beds and that the number of docks is limited to one for each lot to be located off existing rock faces. The subject lands are to be rezoned to permit the intended residential use subject to a 30.0 metre Environmental Protection Zone being retained along the shoreline and measured from the high water mark.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the District of Muskoka Official Plan and the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. By-law 94-54 is hereby amended and satisfies that criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  12. D’Urzo v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto, which dismissed two applications for consent and three minor variances for the purpose of the application is to create three single-family building lots where two currently exist. In order for construction to occur, the applicant applied for the following variances from By-law 7625: proposed frontage and width of 12.89 metres whereas minimum is 15 metres; side yard setback of 1.21 metres whereas minimum is 1.54 metres; and proposed dwelling length of 18.9 metres whereas maximum is 18.8 metres.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    It is clear to the Board that this is a very stable single-family area with large lots and is undergoing revitalization with existing lots being purchased and new home being constructed, and is therefore not in a state of decline or transition to a different or more intensive use. It is also clear that the Official Plan policies state that preservation of stable residential area is an important policy direction and that intensification as being proposed should be undertaken with circumspection. The Board finds that this residential area is not in decline or that reduced lot sizes are required as a planning tool to reinvigorate the area.


    Document(s):



  13. Kay Family Trust v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto that dismissed an application for consent to convey approximately 215.3 square metres of land from the rear yard area of the Kay Family Trust Property to be added to the rear yard area of the Brodie property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board agrees that there is no adverse impact on the public interest and that the rear yard amenity area function would remain unchanged. Its intended use for soft landscaping and the lot addition, results in a lot depth and area more in keeping with the existing physical character of the vicinity and no resulting adverse impact. The Board finds that consent meets the applicable criteria as set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  14. Grivogiannis v. Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appellant seeks permission to create a new lot of 1150 metres squared, primarily by the removal of the three-car garage attached to the southeast side of his bungalow. To address conflictions with two standards of Zoning By-law 6752, the appellant also seeks a variance to the lot frontage and permission to install a front parking pad to the front of the bungalow. His application to the panel of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment having been denied, they have been appealed to the Board.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot will adversely affect the physical character of the neighbourhood by introducing an inappropriate lot shape and house form that fails to adequately address item 51(24) of the Planning Act. Also, having found that the application is in conflict with the East York Official Plan policy 2.5.8, it fails to address item 51(24) of the Act.


    Document(s):