Grey Highlands council has taken the unusual step of launching an appeal of a decision made by the municipality’s committee of adjustment.
At its meeting on March 5, council voted 6-1 to make an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) of a decision made by the municipality’s committee of adjustment to significantly reduce the sideyard setbacks to allow a home to be built on a long, narrow piece of property that was formerly a road allowance.
The 1.52-hectare property is 742 metres deep and just 20 metres wide. It is considered a non-conforming lot in the municipality’s planning documents. It was decommissioned as a road allowance in 1959.
The owners of the property would like to build a house on the lot, however, the narrow shape of the property makes it impossible for a home to be built that would satisfy the municipality’s 15-metre sideyard setback requirement. The zoning bylaw requires 15-metre setbacks from adjacent properties on both sides of the home.
Several years ago, the previous owners of the property sought a rezoning to allow a home to be built on the lot. The council of the day turned down that application. The current owners sought a minor variance to reduce the sideyard setbacks from 15 metres to six metres to accommodate their proposed dwelling. In their planning report on the matter, the proponents included examples of other smaller sized homes in Grey Highlands that had been permitted reduced setbacks.
On Feb. 11, the municipality’s committee of adjustment approved the minor variance in a 4-1 vote. The decision was not without controversy as several local residents spoke at the committee meeting to express concerns about the proposal. Local resident Talisa Haskins attended the March 5 council meeting and expressed opposition to the committee’s decision.
The committee of adjustment is a quasi-judicial tribunal and an independent body of council-appointed citizen members that decides minor planning matters like applications for variances to the municipality’s zoning bylaw and consent severances. The Grey Highlands committee consists of three members of council - Mayor Paul McQueen and councillors Nadia Dubyk and Paul Allen, and two members of the public, Dave Clarke and Cathy Little (both Clarke and Little are former council members).
Committee of adjustment decisions are not normally reviewed or discussed by council. Committee minutes appear on council’s consent agenda and are rarely lifted for further discussion.
However, in this case, several councillors expressed concerns, which prompted a discussion and resolution to proceed with an appeal of the decision.
“What they asked for is not minor in nature,” said Coun. Tom Allwood, who noted the previous zoning bylaw application for the property that had been defeated by council. “I think this was some sort of work around that doesn’t sit well with me.”
Allen was the lone opposing vote at the committee of adjustment and said he had the same concerns.
“It’s a variance on both sides – it isn’t minor. This is a 60-per-cent reduction on each side,” said Allen. “I don’t feel that’s compatible with neighbouring properties.”
During the discussion on the issue, council was joined by municipal solicitor/lawyer Ed Veldbloom to get an opinion about how an appeal of the committee’s decision would proceed.
Initially, it was suggested that the 20-day appeal period for the decision had passed, however, later in the discussion council was given information that the appeal period was still open.
Veldbloom told council that the minor variance application had been supported by both the proponent’s planner and the municipality’s planner. He said to appeal the decision, Grey Highlands would have to get the opinion of another planner indicating the decision was incorrect.
“The OLT relies heavily on expert evidence,” said Veldbloom. “The municipality would have to have an expert planner present contrary evidence.”
Veldbloom told council the application is relatively straightforward and wouldn’t likely require more than one or two days for an OLT hearing.
At the conclusion of the discussion, council voted 6-1 in favour of launching an appeal. McQueen was the lone vote in opposition.