Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario Ontario Limited P. A. Robertson

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: MAR. 17, 2009 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Brent Burlock Subject: By-law No Municipality: Municipality of Trent Hills OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: PL IN THE MATTER OF subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Brent Burlock Proposed Plan of Condominium Concession 3, Part of Lot 16, West Side of Percy Street, Village of Warkworth Municipality of Trent Hills SB01/2008 PL PL A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Counsel Ontario Limited P. A. Robertson Municipality of Trent Hills J. Ewart Paula and Brent Burlock Participants David Linton Donald Dudley

2 - 2 - PL MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. A. SILLS ON FEBRUARY 4, 2009 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Paula and Brent Burlock (Appellants) have appealed the decisions of the Council of the Municipality of Trent Hills, which authorized a Zoning By-law Amendment and approved a Draft Plan of Condominium with respect to property owned by Ontario Limited (Applicant) and located in Concession 3, Part of Lot 16, West Side of Percy Street, Village of Warkworth. Background The subject lands are comprised of three parcels within the urban boundary of the Village of Warkworth. Two of the lots comprising the entire parcel have municipal water and sewer servicing. This property is designated for residential development in the Municipality of Trent Hills Official Plan (OP) and is zoned Residential 1 (R1) in Zoning By-law No The owners propose to develop this property by constructing 54 residential multi-unit townhouses in blocks of three to four units per block. The common elements of this development including, internal roads, green space, recreational facilities, and drainage works, will be retained, managed and maintained by the condominium corporation. The Municipal Council authorized Zoning By-law No , which rezoned the property to Residential Type 3 (R3) and provides an exemption to frontage requirements. The proposed lots/units will have 10 metres of frontage on the internal roads within the development. A Draft Plan of Condominium has also been approved in accordance with subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. The main portion of the subject lands is an elevated grassland area. These lands are linked by a sloped scrubland area to former orchard lands at a lower elevation from the grasslands. The subject parcels are bordered by pasturelands to the west, a fiveacre residential property to the north, and a residential area consisting of single dwelling units to the east. The area to the south is a large tract of land currently used to pasture cattle. The subject site has approximately 47 metres of frontage on Percy Street.

3 - 3 - PL The first public meeting to consider this matter was held on March 28, 2008 at which time the application was deferred pending a site visit by Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority (LTRCA) staff. A site visit conducted on May 6, 2008, included LTRCA staff, municipal staff, and proponents and engineering consultants for the developers. As a result of issues identified by LTRCA and municipal staff, modifications were made to the site plan and several recommendations were incorporated as Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. At a second public meeting held on July 15, 2008, Council approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Condominium. Several local residents were in attendance at the hearing and a number of individuals were initially requesting participant status. Some of the residents expressed support for the proposal, while others were opposed. The concerns expressed by those in opposition included intensification, environmental issues, water and sewer servicing, and safety concerns related to increased traffic. It was apparent by the preliminary comments of several of the objectors, that they were not familiar with the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. On consent of the parties, the Board stood down for 30 minutes to permit the municipal planner an opportunity to clarify matters for those in attendance. When the hearing reconvened, the Board granted Mr. David Linton and Mr. Donald Dudley participant status. In an opening submission, the Appellants requested the Board issue an Order directing this matter back to the Municipal Council for further consideration. Their grounds for this request was that the application was incomplete and the actions of staff/council did not constitute proper planning processes in accordance with the Planning Act and municipal planning policies. The Appellants allege that the required documents have not been made available to members of the public and further information will be required to make a proper planning evaluation of this application. The Appellants have based many of their assertions on the fact that members of the public have not received copies of site plan drawings, engineering reports, etc.

4 - 4 - PL The Board advised the Appellants of the purpose of the hearing and the role of the Member in this matter. The Board further informed them that the Planning Act and municipal planning processes do not require that individual members of the public be provided with copies of professional studies, engineering reports, etc. The Appellants were reminded that even though many of the studies may not yet be completed, they would be required before final approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is granted. Accordingly, the Board denied the Appellants request and proceeded to hear the evidence of the parties. Planning Evidence The Board heard planning evidence in support of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium from Mr. Jim Peters, a planner on staff with the Municipality of Trent Hills. The planner told the Board that the concerns of local residents presented at two public meetings, primarily related to the impact of this development on municipal roads, sewers and storm water management. He provided the Board with detailed evidence respecting site plan modifications and municipal requirements which address these concerns. These requirements include a storm water management plan, traffic analysis and improvements to the road system. With respect to sewage capacity, the planner told the Board that flows at the treatment lagoon have historically exceeded the design capacity. Over the past two years the municipality has undertaken a program to identify and eliminate sources of groundwater infiltration into the system. While this program is expected to result in regaining some capacity, the developers will be required to prepare a servicing options study as well as designs and justifications for an application to extend water and sewer services to the development. These extensions will require an application for a Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment to ensure that both the water and sewer systems and treatment facilities can support increased development. Mr. Peters testified that policies of the OP, direct growth to the three urban centres. The entirety of the subject lands are located within the urban boundary of the

5 - 5 - PL Village of Warkworth and are designated for residential use. The housing forms in areas designated residential may include street, block and stacked townhouses. Mr. Peters said OP policies, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Growth Plan encourage residential development at higher densities within areas where services are available. He said the majority of existing housing within the Municipality of Trent Hills is single dwelling units and the proposed development will offer a housing type not currently available in the community. It was his opinion that the Residential 3 Zone is the appropriate zone for the type of housing proposed. Mr. Peters said municipal planning policies encourage all new development to be as sustainable as possible in order to minimize impacts on the land, vegetation, energy consumption and municipal servicing infrastructure. He explained that the studies required by the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval would identify any requirements/modifications necessary to meet sustainability standards. He contended that the concerns of local residents have, or will be addressed through the conditions to be met for final approval. It was Mr. Peter s professional opinion that the proposal is consistent with municipal and provincial planning policies and represents good planning. Position of the Appellants Mrs. Burlock told the Board that they purchased their property in February 2006 after completing an extensive review of the area. She testified that they decided to purchase the property because of the secluded, rural nature of the area. She said they believed the rural zoning of the surrounding property would protect them from the type of development, which is being proposed by the Applicant. Mrs. Burlock said they had hopes of one day being able to purchase the lands which are the subject of this application, as her family had dreams of acquiring a couple of horses and possibly a small chicken coop. She told the Board they approached the owner of this land immediately after taking possession of their home, to make him aware of their intentions and asked him to let them know when he was ready to sell.

6 - 6 - PL Mrs. Burlock stated her primary concern related to the increase in vehicle traffic, which will be generated by the proposed development. She said the creation of internal roads to service this development will result in her property being completely surrounded by roadways and she is concerned about the safety and well-being of their children and family pets. She told the Board it is her observation that an average of 2 or 3 vehicles a day pass in front of their home on Percy Street. Percy Street is a municipally maintained gravel road, which ends north of their property. The Applicant proposes to construct two connections to Percy Road, one which will be at a point north of the Burlock home. She contended that this will result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicles travelling past their home on a daily basis. Other concerns voiced by Mrs. Burlock included increased density, decreased property values and a loss of privacy, security and their quality of life. She submitted, the fact their property was situated on a hill, away from it all, was vitally relevant in their decision to buy. When looking to purchase a homestead, she said they were purposefully seeking a quiet, restful setting and chose this particular property for the peace and tranquility it offered. It is her opinion that the proposed development threatens their security and peaceful enjoyment of their property, and ultimately sacrifices their quality of life. She further contends that the proposed density of this development is not appropriate for this area. The Appellants believe there are numerous reasons as to why it (the development) doesn t fit the proposed location. Concerns of Local Residents The Board also heard from two local residents in opposition to the proposal: Mr. David Linton who has resided at 72 Percy Street for the past 20 years and Mr. Donald Dudley who resides at 182 Old Hastings Road West. Mr. Linton s concerns include loss of privacy, loss of peaceful enjoyment of his property, reduction in the value of his property, and potential dangers to area wildlife. He said he did not wish to see this area change from its present state.

7 - 7 - PL Mr. Donald Dudley s concerns relate to municipal water and sewage capacity. He told the Board, that as a former member of the Percy Municipal Council, he is aware of the challenges affecting development in Warkworth as a result of water and sewage capacity constraints. He said his family has plans for a future development in close proximity to the subject site and he is concerned that the proposed development will use up all of the reserve capacity, preventing further development of the area. Disposition The Board heard the concerns of the Burlocks and local residents and considered the evidence proffered. The Board accepts and relies on the uncontradicted and uncontroverted planning evidence of Mr. Peters, who was the only expert witness to testify at these proceedings. The subject site is vacant land within the urban centre, which is partially serviced. The OP directs new residential development to this area. The Board heard that the Appellants researched this area prior to purchasing their property and felt secure in the knowledge that the subject lands were zoned rural. Mrs. Burlock told the Board that they believed this zoning would protect them from future development, other than single-family homes. In response to a question by this Member, Mrs. Burlock conceded they did not ever discuss future development potential of this area with the municipal planner, or real estate personnel. Although the Municipality of Trent Hills has not yet finalized a plan to implement the policies of the Growth Plan and achieve intensification targets, the subject lands would appear to be a logical location for growth; a vacant land parcel within an urban centre with existing servicing. The Appellants cannot rely on their own assumption that the existing zoning of this area would guarantee that the land would not be developed for purposes other than single-family dwellings. The Board finds that the Appellants concern with respect to traffic has no merit. While there is no argument that there will be an increase in vehicles traveling along Percy Street in front of their home, the Board relies on the related study which concluded the traffic volume will remain at acceptable levels. Percy Street is a

8 - 8 - PL municipally owned/maintained road and as such, the Appellants cannot expect it to function as an exclusive roadway. A Traffic Impact Assessment completed by G. D. Jewell Engineering Inc. further concluded that the proposed development will have no impacts on the performance of the existing road network in the study area. The Board heard from both Mr. Linton and Mrs. Burlock that their quality of life will be greatly impaired by the proposed development. However, they were unable to present any evidence in support of this contention. The proposal is for a residential development which is a permitted use and is compatible with the surrounding area. There are no issues with meeting setback standards with respect to the Burlock or Linton properties and the natural vegetation and treed areas will provide an adequate privacy buffer to both their properties. While the Board finds the concerns of the Appellants to be genuine, they failed to present any evidence in support of their assertions of adverse impact. It is not enough to simply put forward an apprehension of impact. The Board finds that Zoning By-law No and the Draft Plan of Condominium both protects the public interest and represents good planning. The Board is satisfied the proposal meets the provisions set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act. Mr. Robertson, counsel for Ontario Limited requested an opportunity to present submissions for costs. The Board hearing on the Motion for Costs will be conducted by written submissions in accordance with the Board s Rules of Practice and Procedure. THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal against By-law is dismissed. THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal against the Draft Plan of Condominium is dismissed and the Draft Plan of Condominium is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

9 - 9 - PL AND THE BOARD ORDERS that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Municipality of Trent Hills shall have the authority to clear the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval and to administer final approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Board may be spoken to. So Orders the Board. M. A. Sills M. A. SILLS MEMBER

10 PL081277

11 PL081277