Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: Sept. 11, 2008 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant/Applicant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Municipal No. Consent 644 Mohawk Road City of Hamilton B-01/08 IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant/Applicant: Subject: Variance from By-law: Property Address/Description: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Municipal No. Minor Variance Mohawk Road City of Hamilton PL PL A-02/08 A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Counsel B. Duxbury MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G. C. O CONNOR ON AUGUST 8, 2008 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD The Applications The first application is to convey a vacant parcel of land having a frontage of metres and an area of square metres for a single family residential purpose and to retain a parcel of land with a frontage of metres and an area of

2 - 2 - square metres. The retained parcel would consist of the existing single-family dwelling and garage. The subject lands are municipally known as 644 Mohawk Road in the City of Hamilton (former Town of Ancaster). The property is designated Residential and is zoned Existing Residential (ER). The second application is for variances from the provisions of Zoning By-law 87-57, which are required to permit the creation of two lots, as follows: 1. A minimum lot frontage of metres for the lands to be retained where 18.0 metres is required. 2. A minimum lot frontage of metres for the lands to be severed where 18.0 metres is required. The City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (the COA ) denied the consent and variances on the basis that the proposal did not appear to be in the interest of proper planning and development for the area, did not comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law, nor with Section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The Planning Evidence Mr. Ed Fothergill, a professional planner, provided uncontroverted planning opinion evidence in support of the applications. He testified that the subject property is in proximity to transportation routes, Highway 403, in an area with many different lot patterns and single-family dwellings. There are recently constructed homes along Mohawk Road with the occurrence of much infilling. He explained to the Board that the circulated agencies and the City of Hamilton Planning and Development staff supported the applications with the eight COA conditions, which he also recommended. In their opinion the proposed variances are minor in nature, are desirable and appropriate for the use of the lands. Mr. Fothergill testified that the proposal represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (the PPS ), consistent with the Places to Grow Act in optimizing the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in

3 - 3 - a compact form (Exhibit 1, p.90). Mr. Fothergill also opined that the proposal complies with the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the Town of Ancaster Official Plans. According to Mr. Fothergill, the proposal meets all of the criteria set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act (Act) and there is no requirement for a plan of subdivision. The planner also testified that the variances applied for meet the four tests of section 45(1) of the Act and help to achieve the intensification objectives. He concluded that both applications represent good planning. Mr. Matthew Blevins, a professional Development Planner with the City of Hamilton, testified that he was consulted on this application, visited the subject property and reviewed all applicable policies. He was of the opinion that the applications meet the PPS policies, as they focus growth in settlement areas while the Regional Official Plan focuses growth in the urban areas. In his opinion, the creation of a new lot is appropriate and in keeping with the lot fabric in the area. Mr. Blevins also explained that the subject property is one of the larger lots on the street. The planner recommended that consent should be given, subject to the same conditions proposed by the COA. In terms of the minor variances, he opined that even though they represent a reduction in lot frontage, they meet the four tests and should be authorized. Neighbour s Concerns Mr. Errol Endert, a resident of 633 Mohawk, who appeared in opposition to the proposal, testified that the Applicant was an absentee landlord but was maintaining his property. He was of the opinion that the proposal would create storm water problems as the subject lands are close to a flood plain. He said that the application does not comply with the zoning requirements and there was no reason to depart from the existing By-law. He does not support the removal of trees on the subject lands as he appreciates the buffer between the properties.

4 - 4 - Board Findings and Conclusion The Board accepts the uncontroverted and uncontested expert planning and opinion evidence of both planners that the applications constitute good land use planning, they conform to the applicable Official Plans and to Zoning By-law They are also consistent with the PPS and the Places to Grow Act. The Board appreciates the concern of Mr. Endert, however there is no clear evidence of impact from the variances or the consent. The Board finds the severance application meets the criteria set out in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The Board finds that the variance applications meet the four tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act; the variances are minor, they are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and they meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and of Zoning By-law The Board Orders that the appeals are allowed and the variances for lot frontage are authorized. Provisional consent is to be given as set out in the original application subject to the COA conditions attached hereto as Attachment 1. So Orders the Board. G. C. O Connor G. C. O CONNOR MEMBER

5