-
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS - PLANNING COMMITTEE
FROM: R. W. PANZER GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning
and Development, in response to the letters of appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board, dated October 15, 2007 and submitted by
Dennis Wood, on behalf of the Estate of John Aarts and London
Exeter Developments Inc., relating to minor variance applications
A.76/07 and A.77/07, and consent applications B.33/07 and B.34107,
concerning 51 and 99 Exeter Road, the Ontario Municipal Board BE
ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the decision of the
Consent Authority and the Committee of Adjustment to refuse the
applications for consent and minor variance, and that the City
Solicitor and the General Manager of Planning and Development be
directed to provide legal and planning representation at the
Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the decision of
Municipal Council. ,
I
SUBJECT:
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER I None. *Related
reports - Southwest Area Issues Summary Report
I 1 II
APPLICATION BY: ESTATE OF JOHN AARTS 8, LONDON EXETER
DEVELOPMENTS INC. 51 & 99 EXETER ROAD
ADDliCatiOn In Mav. 2007. two atmlications for consent were
received. for the Drooerties located at 51 Exeter ,, ~~~ ~ ~ , ~ ,
Road (B. 034/07) and 99 Exeter Road (B.033/07). The applicant was
seeking permission to sever 26.0 hectares with existing farm
dwellings and retain 23.0 hectares of vacant land (B.33/07 - 99
Exeter Road). The other application for consent for 51 Exeter Road
was requesting to sever 4.1 hectares and convey these lands to 99
Exeter Road, and retain 10.52 hectares of vacant land (8.34107 - 51
Exeter Road). A revised application for both properties was
received in September, 2007 - to sever 22.0 hectares with existing
farm dwellings and retain 27.0 hectares of vacant land (B.33107 -
99 Exeter Road), and to sever 7.3 hectares and convey these lands
to 99 Exeter Road, and retaining 7.32 hectares of vacant land
(B.34/07 - 51 Exeter Road).
Applications for minor variance were also received for the two
properties (A.76/07 - 99 Exeter Road, and A.76/07 - 51 Exeter Road)
to ultimately reflect the deficiencies in lot area. 99 Exeter Road
- requesting to permit a proposed severed parcel of land with a
farm with a lot area of 26 ha (64 ac) whereas 40 ha (98.8 ac) is
required; 51 Exeter Road - requesting to permit a proposed lot area
of 10.5 ha (25.9 ac) whereas 40 ha (98.8 ac) is required. A copy of
the revised proposed severance and location map is attached as
Appendix "A".
Current context and issues with application The subject lands
are designated Urban Reserve - Industrial Growth, and Environmental
Review in the City of London Official Plan. The same lands are
zoned Urban Reserve /Open SpacelEnvironmental Review (UR6/OS4/ER)
in Zoning By-law Z.-1. The current use of the subject lands is
agricultural.
The Planning Division recommended refusal of the consent
applications. Overall, the proposed consents did not meet the
intent of the Provincial Policy Statement, Official Plan and Zoning
By-
1
-
A enda Item # Pa e #
A.76107, A.77107, 8.33107 B 34/07 d, Pasato Elm
law.
Provincial Policv Statement 2005 The Provincial Policy Statement
2005 (PPS) defines "development" as "...the creation of a new
lot...". Therefore, this application constitutes "development"
under the PPS. The PPS also includes a set of criteria used to
evaluate lot creation and lot adjustments in agricultural areas
(Section 2.3.4). Specifically, policy 2.3.4.1 a) states that lot
creation is only permitted "provided the lots are of a size
appropriate for the type of agricultural uses common in the area".
The City, through Official Plan policy, has determined that a
viable agricultural parcel shall be a minimum 40 hectares in size,
and that this size lot is appropriate for the type of agricultural
use that is common in the area. This application would further
fragment already undersized agricultural lands, which further do
not meet the intent of the Official Plan and Provincial Policy.
Official Plan 8, Zoning By-law The subject lands are designated
"Urban Reserve - Industrial Growth and "Environmental Review" on
Schedule " A of the Official Plan. Due to concerns regarding
premature development, Urban Reserve areas are zoned to allow a
limited range of uses. The "Urban Reserve - Industrial Growth"
designations are intended to provide a general indication of the
mix of urban land uses proposed for the area. "Industrial Growth"
areas will be composed generally of uses that are permitted in the
"Light Industrial", "General Industrial" and "Office Business Park"
designations. The preferred approach to planning areas designated
"Urban Reserve" is through the Area Study process. Council may,
however, review and adopt site specific Official Plan Amendments
for lands designated "Urban Reserve" provided it does not
negatively affect the community planning process on surrounding
lands. The severance of land within the Urban Reserve designation
will be subject to the Agricultural Land Consent policies within
Chapter 9. The subject lands are also designated "Environmental
Review" on Schedule "A, and contain "Vegetation Patches Outside of
ESAs and Wetland's'', "Groundwater Recharge Areas", and
"Floodplain" as delineated on Schedule "B".
Policy 19.7.1 of the Official Plan includes criteria to be used
in the evaluation of any application for consent. Criteria include:
demonstrated conformity with the provisions of the Official Plan,
Zoning By-law, and any applicable area study or guideline document;
matters that would apply through a plan of subdivision are taken
into consideration; that the size and shape of any lots to be
created would be appropriate for the intended use, and would
generally conform to adjacent development; that the consent would
infill and not extend a developed area; the proposed lots would
have access to an existing public road; the lots would not unduly
reduce the accessibility of abutting lands; access would not create
traffic problems or hazards; that adequate municipal services and
utilities would be available; new lots within the Urban Reserve
designation would conform to policy 9.2.14.; and for lands
designated "Environmental Review", the potential impacts resulting
from fragmentation of natural features corridors and linkages will
be taken into consideration.
The policies for agricultural land consent were put in place to
limit farmland fragmentation, to promote the consolidation of farm
holdings and to discourage lot creation for non-farm related uses.
Generally, consent to sever land in the Agriculture or Urban
Reserve designation may only be granted if:
a) the consent is for farming operations (9.2.14.4.); b) the
consent is for mortgage purposes (9.2.14.5.); c) it is a lot
correction (9.2.14.6.); d) the consent would create a surplus farm
dwelling (9.2.14.7.); and e) the consent is for agricultural
commercial or industrial uses (9.2.14.8.).
It is the policy of the Official Plan to discourage the severing
of smaller parcels from larger land holdings within the Urban
Reserve designation. In this regard, 40 hectares (100 acres) is
regarded as the minimum size for a standard farm parcel.
The applicant has submitted an Agricultural Opinion, which
concluded that Parcel A and Parcel B will be viable farm parcels
based on their size, access from arterial roads, with no potential
disruption to cultivation based on the severance. Parcel C,
however, was determined to not be a viable farm parcel due to its
size and other constraints, including drainage issues and
existing
2
-
A.76107, A.77/07, 8.33107 B 34107 d. Pgsato vegetation on the
site, and was recommended that in order for the parcel to be viable
agriculturally, it will need to be farmed by the same operators as
Parcel A and B.
The applicant has also submitted a Planning Justification Report
and additional correspondence (August 16). The additional
correspondence provided states that the revised severance line for
99 Exeter Road has been moved to the northern edge of the Pincombe
Drain to correspond with the floodplain line "to ensure that this
natural feature is not fragmented, as per the intent of the
Official Plan". However, the creation of Parcel "B" and Parcel " C
still fragment the Pincombe Drain under separate ownership and
potentially fragment a small woodlot which is as yet unevaluated.
Policy 15.5. states that "ln circumstances where an Area Study is
not completed, the City may require a Subject Land Status Report to
determine whether a more detailed Environmental lmpact Study is
required'. This has not been done. The additional correspondence
states that "Policies in the Official Plan requiring a "detailed
environmental study" as part of applications for development are
not applicable to the proposed severance applications given that no
development is being proposed at this time". This application
constitutes "development" under the PPS. This statement does not
address the impact that a revised severance line and fragmentation
will have on a natural heritage feature under separate ownership.
The City will determine whether a Subject Land Status Report is
necessary in this instance. Overall, the Planning Justification
Report does not adequately address the Environmental Review portion
of the lands that are subject to the application.
The findings of the Agricultural report state that although
Parcel A and B would be viable agricultural lands, Parcel C, on its
own, would not be of a sufficient size to continue agricultural
operations unless farmed by the owners of either Parcel A or B. The
agricultural report also recommends that "mitigation" occur for
Parcels B and C, which would include the removal of woodlots which
are currently listed on "Schedule B" of the Official Plan and have
had no environmental studies completed to support their removal.
The additional correspondence states that "The addition of the
agriculturally viable portion of the modified Lot C to the modified
Lot A results in a viable farm unit of approximately 40 hectares,
which is in keeping with the Official Plan's intenl'. The resulting
severance would not create one 40 hectare parcel under one
ownership, but rather two farm parcels, deficient in size based on
Official Plan policy, and under separate ownership, which is
contrary to the policies of the Official Plan. Granting a severance
in this manner may set conditions for future land use applications
prior to the completion of the Council-approved Area Plan
process.
Servicing continues to be an issue within the south-west area of
the City. A report was prepared in January 2008 which dealt with
the issues surrounding the south-west quadrant of the City, such as
the absence of a comprehensive area plan review and the lack of
availability of full municipal services. The southwest quadrant of
the City is the least developed in terms of major servicing. There
are needs for: major water supply and distribution infrastructure;
sanitary sewer capacity, both in terms of trunk supply and
treatment plant capacity; and as the area builds out, for
transportation improvements. The impacts of growth on servicing
have not been fully realized as there are large tracts of land in
this area where Area Plans have not been progressed.
Planninu O~inion The proposed consents would further fragment
viable agricultural lands and further fragment property ownership
in an area that will eventually be the subject of an Area Plan
process, thus complicating property ownership further and possibly
creating issues for the location of servicing, transportation, etc.
The proposed severance did not adequately demonstrate the impact
this severance could have on future land uses and the area plan
process. An Area Plan process is intended to allow Council to
assess and determine the appropriate land uses and future
development within an area, based on supporting studies, such as
Servicing Studies, Transportation Studies, Natural Heritage
Studies, Land Needs Assessments etc, which have not been submitted.
The rationale for applying the Urban Reserve designation and the
Agricultural Consent policies is clearly intended to protect large
tracts of land from future development without the consideration
and consent of Municipal Council. The submission of an independent
report which has not been vetted through Council does not meet the
intent of the Official Plan. No supporting studies had been
submitted with respect to the fragmentation of the Environmental
Review lands, which is contrary to the consent policies and to the
policies under Chapter 15 of the Official Plan.
3
-
Agenda Item # Pa e # I r - - A.76107, A.77107, 8.33107 B.34107
d. Pasato
Minor Variance amlications The Planning Division also
recommended refusal of the minor variance applications. The
proposed minor variances are to allow for the severance and
conveyance of three agricultural parcels that do not meet the
intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law. The proposed consent
would fragment viable agricultural lands and fragment property
ownership in an area that will eventually be the subject of an Area
Plan process, thus complicating property ownership. The proposed
severance has not adequately demonstrated the impact this severance
could have on future land uses and the area plan process. An Area
Plan process is intended to allow Council to assess and determine
the appropriate land uses and future development within an area,
based on supporting studies, such as Servicing Studies,
Transportation Studies, Natural Heritage Studies, Land Needs
Assessments etc, which have not been submitted. The rationale for
applying the Urban Reserve designation and the Agricultural Consent
policies is clearly intended to protect large tracts of land from
future development without the consideration and consent of
Municipal Council. No supporting studies have been submitted with
respect to the fragmentation of the Environmental Review lands,
which is contrary to the consent policies and to the policies under
Chapter 15 of the Official Plan.
The proposed lots will not have minimum lot areas that comply
with the Z.-1 Zoning By-law. The proposed minor variance will allow
for the severance of lands in the Urban Reserve designation without
a comprehensive Area Study contrary to the policies of the Official
Plan. The proposed minor variance does not conform to the City of
London Official Plan, or 2-1 Zoning By-law; the minor variances are
not desirable or minor in nature.
Applicant’s appeal The applicants have appealed the refusal for
consent and minor variance. The reasons for the appeal .of consent
are! the proposed consents conform to the policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement in respect to the creation of new lots
in prime agricultural areas; the proposed consents conform to the
policies of the Official Plan; the proposed severances satisfy the
permitted reasons to sever identified in the Official Plan; the
proposed consents meet the objective of the Agricultural Land
Consent policies in the Official Plan and generally match the lot
fabric in this part of London which has farm parcels less then 40
hectares. The appeal letters are attached as Appendix “C”.
The OMB has consolidated the hearings and will schedule a date
in the near future.
RECOMMEMED BW
I I R. W. PANZER, MCIP, R U GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
*
March 4, 2008 NPlnp “Attach Y:\Shared\lMPLEMEN\ConsentsV.008
Consents\Reports, Correspondence\omb report 51 exeterdoc
4
-
A enda Item # Pa e # ;;;, U I
A.76107, A.77107, 8.33107 6.34107 d. Pasato Appendix “A”
Revised proposed consents and location map
5
-
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Severances (revised)
Source. Callon Diet2 Incorporated SiOS?O_
PLANNING DIVISION SCANHED
-
LOCATION MAP Subject Site: 51 & 99 Exeter Road - Consent and
minor variance applications File Number: A.76/07, A.77/07, B.33/07,
B.37/07 Created By: Nancy Pasato Date: 2008-02-26 Scale:
1:15100
N Corporation of the City of London Prepared By: PD -
Planning
LEGEND Subject Site Parks Assessment Parcels a Buildings
@ Address Numbers
-
A.76107, A.77107, 8.33107 8.34107 d. Pasato Appendix “B”
Planning Division Comments
4
-
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON
London C A N A D A
Date: September 21, 2007
To: Peter Sikic London Consent Authority
From: Planning and Development Department Implementation
Section
Subject: Planning and Development Department Comments - Consents
Deadline Date - September 7, 2007
REVISED APPLICATION B.33107 99 Exeter Road
B.34107 51 Exeter Road London Exeter Developments Inc.
Estate of John Aarts
A revised application for consent was received for the lands
located at 99 Exeter Road. The applicant is seeking permission to
sever 22.0 hectares with existing farm dwellings and retain 27.0
hectares of vacant land (B.33/07). A revised application was also
received for 51 Exeter Road, with a request to sever 7.3 hectares
and convey these lands to 99 Exeter Road, and retaining 7.32
hectares of vacant land (B.34/07). Since the applications are
related, comments for both of the proposed consent applications are
provided below.
The subject lands are designated Urban Reserve - Industrial
Growth, and Environmental Review in the City of London Official
Plan. The same lands are zoned Urban Reserve /Open
Space/Environmental Review (UR6/OS4/ER) in Zoning By-law Z.- 1.
The lands to which these applications apply are also the subject
of two revised minor variance applications (A.76/07, and
A.77/07).
Through the original application, the applicant had also
submitted an Agricultural Opinion (Dillon Consulting) and a
Planning Justification Report (GSP Group) which has been used in
the review of these applications. As part of the revised
application, further correspondence was provided by GSP Group,
dated August 16, 2007, and was also used in the review of these
applications. To help clarify the comments, "Parcel A will refer to
the land created by the proposed severance of 99 Exeter Road and
the ultimate conveyance from 51 Exeter Road, to create a parcel
with a total lot area of 28.97 hectares; "Parcel B will refer to
the retained 7.34 hectares of land located at 51 Exeter Road; and
"Parcel C" will refer to the severed 27.0 hectare parcel from 99
Exeter Road.
Policy 19.7.1 of the Official Plan includes criteria to be used
in the evaluation of any application for consent. Criteria include:
demonstrated conformity with the provisions of the Official Plan,
Zoning By-law, and any applicable area study or guideline document;
matters that would apply through a plan of subdivision are taken
into consideration; that the size and shape of any lots to be
created would be appropriate for the intended use, and would
generally conform to adjacent development; that the consent would
infill and not extend a developed area; the proposed lots would
have access to an existing public road; the lots would not unduly
reduce the accessibility of abutting lands; access would not create
traffic problems or hazards; that adequate municipal services and
utilities would be available; new lots within the Urban Reserve
designation would conform to policy 9.2.14.; and for lands
designated "Environmental Review", the potential impacts resulting
from fragmentation of natural features corridors and linkages will
be taken into consideration.
The subject lands are designated "Urban Reserve - Industrial
Growth" and "Environmental Review" on Schedule " A of the Official
Plan. Due to concerns regarding premature development, Urban
Reserve areas are zoned to allow a limited range of uses based on
the nature of their existing use. The "Urban Reserve - Industrial
Growth"
1 O f 3
-
designations are intended to provide a general indication of the
mix of urban land uses proposed for the area. "Industrial Growth"
areas will be composed generally of uses that are permitted in the
"Light Industrial", "General Industrial" and "Office Business Park"
designations. The preferred approach to planning areas designated
"Urban Reserve" is through the Area Study process. Council may,
however, review and adopt site specific Official Plan Amendments
for lands designated "Urban Reserve" provided it does not
negatively affect the community planning process on surrounding
lands. The severance of land within the Urban Reserve designation
will be subject to the Agricultural Land Consent policies within
Chapter 9. The subject lands are also designated "Environmental
Review" on Schedule "A , and contain "Vegetation Patches Outside of
ESA's and Wetlands", "Groundwater Recharge Areas", and "Floodplain"
as delineated on Schedule "6.
The policies for agricultural land consent were put in place to
limit farmland fragmentation, to promote the consolidation of farm
holdings and to discourage lot creation for non-farm related uses.
Generally, consent to sever land in the Agriculture or Urban
Reserve designation may only be granted if:
a) the consent is for farming operations (9.2.14.4.); b) the
consent is for mortgage purposes (9.2.14.5.); c) it is a lot
correction (9.2.14.6.); d) the consent would create a surplus farm
dwelling (9.2.14.7.); and e) the consent is for agricultural
commercial or industrial uses (9.2.14.8.).
It is the policy of the Official Plan to discourage the severing
of smaller parcels from larger land holdings within the Urban
Reserve designation. In this regard, 40 hectares (100 acres) is
regarded as the minimum size for a basic farm parcel.
The applicant has submitted an Agricultural Opinion, which
concluded that Parcel A and Parcel B will be viable farm parcels
based on their size, access from arterial roads, with no potential
disruption to cultivation based on the severance. Parcel C,
however, was determined to not be a viable farm parcel due to its
size and other constraints, including drainage issues and existing
vegetation on the site, and was recommended that in order for the
parcel to be viable agriculturally, it will need to be farmed by
the same operators as Parcel A and B.
The applicant has also submitted a Planning Justification Report
and additional correspondence (August 16). The additional
correspondence provided states that the revised severance line for
99 Exeter Road has been moved to the northern edge of the Pincombe
Drain to correspond with the floodplain line "to ensure that this
natural feature is not fragmented, as per the intent of the
Official Plan". However, the creation of Parcel " 5 and Parcel "C"
still fragment the Pincombe Drain under separate ownership and
potentially fragment a small woodlot which is as yet unevaluated.
Policy 15.5. states that "In circumstances where an Area Study is
not completed, the City may require a Subject Land Status Report to
determine whether a more detailed Environmental lmpact Study is
required'. This has not been done. The additional correspondence
states that "Policies in the Official Plan requiring a "detailed
environmental study'' as part of applications for development are
not applicable to the proposed severance applications given that no
development is being proposed at this time". This statement does
not address the impact that a revised severance line and
fragmentation will have on a natural heritage feature under
separate ownership. The City will determine whether a Subject Land
Status Report is necessary in this instance. Overall, the Planning
Justification Report does not adequately address the Environmental
Review portion of the lands that are subject to the
application.
The findings of the Agricultural report state that although
Parcel A and B would be viable agricultural lands, Parcel C, on its
own, would not be of a sufficient size to continue agricultural
operations unless farmed by the owners of either Parcel A or B. The
agricultural report also recommends that "mitigation" occur for
Parcels B and C, which would include the removal of woodlots which
are currently listed on "Schedule B" of the Official Plan and have
had no environmental studies completed to support their removal.
The additional correspondence states that "The addition of the
agriculturally viable portion of the modified Lot C to the modified
Lot A results in a viable farm unit of approximately 40 hectares,
which is in keeping with the Official Plan's intenr'. The resulting
severance would not create one 40 hectare parcel under one
ownership, but rather two farm parcels, deficient in size based on
Official Plan policy, and under separate ownership, which is
contrary to the policies of the Official Plan. Granting a severance
in this manner may set conditions for future land use applications
prior to the completion of the Council-approved Area Plan
process.
2 of 3
-
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) also includes a set of
criteria used to evaluate lot creation and lot adjustments in
agricultural areas (Section 2.3.4). Specifically, policy 2.3.4.1 a)
states that lot creation is only permitted "provided the lots are
of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural uses common in
the area". The City, through Official Plan policy, has determined
that a viable agricultural parcel shall be a minimum 40 hectares in
size, and that this size lot is appropriate for the type of
agricultural use that is common in the area.
Overall, the proposed consents do not meet the intent of the
Official Plan and zoning by- law. The proposed consent would
further fragment viable agricultural lands and further fragment
property ownership in an area that will eventually be the subject
of an Area Plan process, thus complicating property ownership
further. The proposed severance has not adequately demonstrated the
impact this severance could have on future land uses and the area
plan process. An Area Plan process is intended to allow Council to
assess and determine the appropriate land uses and future
development within an area, based on supporting studies, such as
Servicing Studies, Transportation Studies, Natural Heritage
Studies, Land Needs Assessments etc, which have not been submitted.
The rationale for applying the Urban Reserve designation and the
Agricultural Consent policies is clearly intended to protect large
tracts of land from future development without the consideration
and consent of Municipal Council. The submission of an independent
report which has not been vetted through Council does not meet the
intent of the Official Plan. No supporting studies have been
submitted with respect to the fragmentation of the Environmental
Review lands, which is contrary to the consent policies and to the
policies under Chapter 15 of the Official Plan.
The Planning Division strongly recommends refusal of this
consent to sever. However, should the Consent Authority decide to
approve the consent notwithstanding this recommendation, the
Division requests an opportunity to provide further comments and
recommendations relating to conditions that should be applied if
approval is granted
NPlnp Y:\Shared\lMPLEMEN\ConsentsV007 Consents\l7 - Jun
22\6.33.07 and 6.34.07 99 Exeter Road and 51 Exeter Road.doc
3 of 3
-
Agenda Item #
A.76107 A.86/07
99 Exeter Road- London Exeter Development Inc. 51 Exeter Road-
Estate of John Aarts
Zoning:
Official Plan: Urban Reserve, Environmental Review, Open
Current Land Use: Residential and Office Surrounding Land
Uses:
Environmental Review, Open Space, Urban Reserve (ER, OS4,
UR6)
Space
North: Agricultural South: Agricultural East: Light
Industrial/Agricultural West: Agricultural
99 Exeter Road - requesting to permit a proposed severed parcel
of land with a farm with a lot area of 26 ha (64 ac) whereas 40 ha
(98.8 ac) is required. The applicant has also applied to the London
Consent Authority (B.033/07) to divide the existing holdings.
51 Exeter Road - requesting to permit a proposed lot area of
10.5 ha (25.9 ac) whereas 40 ha (98.8 ac) is required. The
applicant has also applied to the London Consent Authority
(B.034/07) to divide the existing holdings.
-
In order for this application to be acceptable as a minor
variance under the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
Chapter P.13, the following requirements should be met:
a) Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and of
the Official Plan maintained?
The subject lands are designated "Urban Reserve - Industrial
Growth" and "Environmental Review" on Schedule " A of the Official
Plan. Due to concerns regarding premature development, Urban
Reserve areas are zoned to allow a limited range of uses based on
the nature of their existing use. The "Urban Reserve - Industrial
Growth" designations are intended to provide a general indication
of the mix of urban land uses proposed for the area. "Industrial
Growth" areas will be composed generally of uses that are permitted
in the "Light Industrial", "General Industrial" and "Office
Business Park" designations. The preferred approach to planning
areas designated "Urban Reserve" is through the Area Study process.
Council may, however, review and adopt site specific Official Plan
Amendments for lands designated "Urban Reserve'' provided it does
not negatively affect the community planning process on surrounding
lands. The severance of land within the Urban Reserve designation
will be subject to the Agricultural Land Consent policies within
Chapter 9.
The policies for agricultural land consent were put in place to
limit farmland fragmentation, to promote the consolidation of farm
holdings and to discourage lot creation for non-farm related uses.
It is the policy of the Official Plan to discourage the
-
severing of smaller parcels from larger land holdings within the
Urban Reserve designation. In this regard, 40 hectares (100 acres)
is regarded as the minimum size for a basic farm parcel.
The subject lands are also designated "Environmental Review" on
Schedule "A, and contain "Vegetation Patches Outside of ESAs and
Wetland's'', "Groundwater Recharge Areas", and "Floodplain" as
delineated on Schedule " B . Chapter 15 requires that an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be completed to determine whether,
or the extent to which, development will be permitted in areas
within, or adjacent to, specific components of the Natural Heritage
System. The City will require that an Environmental Impact Study be
completed to its satisfaction, in consultation with the relevant
public agencies prior to the approval of an Official Plan
amendment, Zoning By-Law amendment, subdivision application or site
plan application, where development is proposed entirely or
partially within the distances adjacent to Natural Heritage System
components.
The subject lands are zoned Environmental Review, Open Space,
and Urban Reserve (ER, OS4, and UR6). The minimum lot area in the
Urban Reserve designation is 40 ha.
b) Is the variance minor in nature and desirable for the
appropriate development or use of the land, building or
structure?
The application is to consolidate and sever the lands at 51 and
99 Exeter Road to create three parcels. All three parcels are
deficient in minimum lot size. Current only two parcels, parcel B
and C as shown above, are requesting relief from the Zoning By-law.
Parcel A has a proposed size of 30.3 ha. This is also deficient of
the required 40 ha minimum.
The applicant has submitted an Agricultural Opinion (Dillon
Consulting) and a Planning Justification Report (GSP Group) which
has been used in the review of these applications. The reports do
not adequately address the Environmental Review portion of the
lands that are subject to the application, nor does the report give
an adequate reason as to why this has not been addressed. The
findings of the Agricultural report state that although Parcel A
and B would be viable agricultural lands, Parcel C, on its own,
would not be of a sufficient size to continue agricultural
operations unless farmed by the owners of either Parcel A or B. The
agricultural report also recommends that "mitigation" occur for
Parcels B and C, which would include the removal of woodlots which
are currently listed on "Schedule B of the Official Plan and have
had no environmental studies completed to support their
removal.
The proposed minor variances are to allow for the severance and
convenience of three agricultural parcels that do not meet the
intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law. The proposed consent
would fragment viable agricultural lands and fragment property
ownership in an area that will eventually be the subject of an Area
Plan process, thus complicating property ownership. The proposed
severance has not adequately demonstrated the impact this severance
could have on future land uses and the area plan process. An Area
Plan process is intended to allow Council to assess and determine
the appropriate land uses and future development within an area,
based on supporting studies, such as Servicing Studies,
Transportation Studies, Natural Heritage Studies, Land Needs
Assessments etc, which have not been submitted. The rationale for
applying the Urban Reserve designation and the Agricultural Consent
policies is clearly intended to protect large tracts of land from
future development without the consideration and consent of
Municipal Council. The submission of an independent report which
has not been vetted through Council does not meet the intent of the
Official Plan. No supporting studies have been submitted with
respect to the fragmentation of the Environmental Review lands,
which is contrary to the consent policies and to the policies under
Chapter 15 of the Official Plan.
The proposed lots will not have minimum lot areas that comply
with the 2-1 Zoning By- law. The proposed minor variance will allow
for the severance of lands in the Urban Reserve designation without
a comprehensive Area Study and without Councils consideration for
appropriateness, contrary to the policies of the Official Plan. The
proposed minor variance does not conform to the City of London
Official Plan, or 2-1 Zoning By-law; the minor variances are not
desirable or minor in nature. The Planning and Development
Department recommends the variances be refused.
-
A.76107, A.77107, B.33107 B.34107 d. Pasato Appendix “C” Appeal
letters
7
-
... , . MUNICIPAL, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAW ....,. , ....
~ ...,.. ~ . . . . .~ . . , ~ . , . . ~ . . . .... ~
15 October 2007
Delivered
Peter Sikic, Secretary Treasurer City of London Committee of
Adjustment 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035,609 London, ON N6A
4L
Dear Mr. Sikic:
Re: Notice of Appeal by London Exeter Developments Minor
Variance Application No. A.076/07 99 Exeter Road, London
IllC.
We are the solicitors for London Exeter Developments hc., the
owner of property municipally known as 99 Exeter Road, London
(“Subject Property”).
Pursuant to Section 45(12) of the Planning Act, our client
hereby appeals the decision of the London Committee of Adjustment
(“Decision”) which refused to grant Minor Variance Application
A076/07 (“Application”) with respect to the Subject Property.
The Application sought a reduction in the minimum lot size for
two lots, one being 22 hectares and the other 27 hectares whereas
40 hectares is required. The Application is related to Consent to
Sever ApplicationNo. B033/07 a e d with the London Consent
Authority. The 22 hectare parcel is to be merged with a 7.3 hectare
parcel of land to be severed from the neighbouring property at 51
Exeter Road, owned by the Estate of John Aarts.
Our client appeals the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment
for the following reasons and for such other reasons as may be
subsequently identified
1. The proposed Minor Variance meets the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the Urban Reserve
designation. The proposed lot sizes do not jeopardize the future
comprehensive and logical planning of the area through an Area Plan
Study process.
The proposed Minor Variance meets the general intent and purpose
of the Zoning By-law, specifically the UR6 Zone applicable to the
Subject Property. It is the intent of the UR6 Zone to preserve the
ability to comprehensively plan lands that are being held for
future urban growth.
2.
Dennis H. Wood Direct: (416) 202-7718 dwooUf4woodbull.ca 65
Queen Street West Suite 1400 Toronto Ontario M5H 2M5 T (416)
203-7160 F 141 6) 203-8324 www.woodbull.ca
-
3. The Minor Variance is desirable for the appropriate
development of fhe land. No development is proposed on any of the
proposed lots at this time as the consent and variance applications
are proposed to facilitate areal estate transaction. Lots will
continue to be used for agricultural purposes until such time as
development applications are approved for the property.
The proposed Mmor Variance is minor in nature. The Subject
Property currently exceeds the minimum lot area provisions; tbe
Subject Property is currently functional and divided into two
smaller portions by the Pincomb Drain so the proposed reduction lot
area would not impact the use ofthe site. of London.
4.
Overall, the proposed land parcel size is in keeping with those
found in ths part
We enclose herewith the requisite appeal form and a kheque in
the amount of $125.00, payable to the Minister of Finance, being
the required appeal filing fee.
Should you require additional information please contact the
undersigned.
Yours very truly,
Wood Bull LLP
I Dennis H. Wood Encl.
- 2 -
-
MUNICIPAL, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAW . , .
15 October 2007
Delivered
Peter Sikic London Consent Authority The Corporation of the City
of London 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035,609 London, ON N6A
4L9
Dear Mr. Sikic:
Re: Notice of Appeal by London Exeter Developments Inc.
Consent.to Sever Application No. B.033/07 99 Exeter Road
We are the solicitors for London Exeter Developments Inc., the
owner of property municipally known as 99 Exeter Road, London
(“Subject Property”).
Pursuant to Section 53(14) of thePZanningAct, OUT client hereby
appeals the decision of the London Consent Authority (“Decision”)
which refused Consent to Sever Application B033/07 (“Application”)
with respect to the Subject Property. The Application sought
consent to sever 22 hectares of land and retain 27 hectares of
vacant land.
London Exeter Developments Inc. and the Estate of John Aarts
(the owner of 51 Exeter Road) propose to sever two adjacent
properties located at the southeast intersection of Wonderland Road
South and Exeter Road, in the City of London. The proposed
severance would facilitate a real estate transaction between the
two owners. The current uses of the Subject Propety (hobby farm,
tenant farm field crops, natural areas that are not farmed) will
continue until such time as an Area Planning Study is undertaken
for this community and development applications are approved for
the properties.
Our client appeals the Decision of the London Consent Authority
for the following reasons and for such other reasons as may be
subsequently identified
1. The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the policies of the
Provincial Policies Statement in respectto the creation of new lots
$‘prime agricultural areas and are supported by an agricultural
report. ’. .
Dennis H. Wood Direct: (41 b) 203-7718 [email protected] 65
Queen Street West Suite 1400 Toronto Ontario M5H 2M5 T (416) 203-71
60 F (41 6 ) 203-8324 w.woodbuil.ca
-
15 October 2007
2. The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the objectives of
the Official Plan, specifically the Urban Reserve designation. The
proposed severance does not jeopardize any hture Area Study process
concerning the comprehensive and logical planning of the area.
The proposed Consent to Sever satisfies the permitted reasons to
sever identified in the Official Plan. The lots which are now
farmed would all continue to be used for farming operations in the
interim, until an Area Study is completed and future development
proposed.
The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the objectives of the
Agricultural Land Consent policies in the Official Plan. The
severance does not further fragment farm land given that: (i) the
Subject Property is presently physically divided; (ii) much of the
Subject Property is occupied by wooded and wetland areas; and (iii)
the estate of John Aarts parcel is presently below the minimum lot
area provisions for agricultural lots. Most of the lot fabric in
this part of London is less than 40 hectares in size.
3.
4.
5. The proposed Consent to Sever meets the severance criteria
and applicable policies of the Agricultural designation of the
Officid Plan.
We enclose herewith the requisite appeal form and a cheque in
the amount of $125.00, payable to the Minister of Finance, being
the required appeal &g fee.
Should you require any additional information please contact the
undersigned.
Yours very truly,
Dennis H. Wood Encl.
- 2 -
-
15 October 2007
Delivered
Peter Sikic, Secretary-Treasurer City of London Committee of
Adjustment 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035,609 London, ON N6A
4L9
Dear Mr. Sikic :
Re: Ngtice of Appeal by the Estate of John Aarts Minor Variance
Application No. A.077/07 51 Exeter Road
We are the solicitors for the Estate of John M s . , the owner
of property municipally known as 5 I Exeter Road, London (“Subject
Property”).
Pursuant to Section 45(12) of thePlunningAct, OUT client hereby
appeals the decision of the London Committee of Adjustment
(“Decision”) which refused to grant Minor Variance Application
A077/07 (“Applicatiog’’) with respect to the Subject Property.
The Application sought a reduction in the minimum lot size of
7.3 hectares whereas 40 hectares is required. The Application is
related to Consent to Sever Application BO34107 which seeks to
sever 7.3 hectares !?om the Subject Property for conveyance to
London Exeter Developments Inc., the owner of the neighbouring
property at 99 Exeter Road, London Exeter Developments Inc.
Our client appeals the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment
for the following reasons and for such other reasons as may be
subsequently identified
1. The proposed Minor Variance meets the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan, specifically the Urban Reserve
designation. The proposed lot sizes do not jeopardize the future
comprehensive and logical planning of the area through an Area Plan
Study process.
The proposed Minor Variance meets the general intent and purpose
of the Zoning By-law, specifically the UR6 Zone applicable to the
Subject Property. It is the intent of the UR6 Zone is to preserve
the ability to comprehensively plan lands that are being held for
future urban growth.
2.
Dennis H. Wood Direct: (4161 203-7718 [email protected] 65 Queen
Street West Sulte 1400 Toronto Ontario M5H 2M5 T (416) 203-7160 F
1416) 203-8324 www.woodbull.ca
-
15 October 2007
3. The Minor Variance is desirable for the appropriate
development of the land. No development is proposed on any of the
proposed lots at this time as the consent and variance applications
are proposed to facilitate a real estate transaction. Lots will
continue to be used for agricultural purposes until such time as
development applications are approved for the property.
The proposed Minor Variances is minor in nature. The Subject
Property currently does not meet the minimum lot area provisions of
the -6 Zone, so the proposed reduction in lot area for the
resulting parcels would be of minimal impact. Overall, the proposed
land parcel size is in keeping with those found in this part of
London.
4.
We enclose herewith the requisite appeal form and a cheque in
the amount of $125.00, payable to the Minister of Finance, being
the required appeal filing fee.
Should you require additional information please contact the
undersigned.
Yours very truly,
Wood Bull LLP
I Dennis H. Wood End.
- 2 -
-
MUNICIPAL, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAW I
15 October 2007
Delivered
Peter Sikic London Consent Authority The Corporation of the City
of London 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035,609 London, ON N6A
4L9
Dear Mr. Sikic:
Re: Notice of Appeal by London Exeter Developments Inc. Consent
to Sever Application No. B.033/07 99 Exeter Road
, ,’ . . :j ,f
I ,. i ,::
‘ i :: I
We are the solicitors for London Exeter Developments Inc., the
owner of property municipally known as 99 Exeter Road, London
(“Subject Property”).
Pursuant to Section 53(14) of the Planning Act, our client
hereby appeals the decision of the London Consent Authority
(“Decision”) which refused Consent to Sever Application BO33107
(“Application’’) with respect to the Subject Property. The
Application sought consent to sever 22 hectares of land and retain
27 hectares of vacant land.
London Exeter Developments Inc. and the Estate of John Aarts
(the owner of 5 1 Exeter Road) propose to sever two adjacent
properties located at the southeast intersection of Wonderland Road
South and Exeter Road, in the City of London. The proposed
severance would facilitate a real estate transaction between the
two owners. The current uses of the Subject Propety (hobby farm,
tenant farm field crops, natural areas that are not fanned) will
continue until such time as an Area Planning Study is undertaken
for this community and development applications are approved for
the properties.
Our client appeals the Decision of the London Consent Authority
for the following reasons and for such other reasons as may be
subsequently identified:
1. The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the policies of the
Provincial Policies Statement in respect to the creation of new
lots in prime agricultural areas and are supported by an
agricultural report.
Dennis H. Wood Direct: (416) 203-7718 [email protected] 65 Queen
Street West Suite 1400 Toronto Ontario M5H 2M5 T (416) 203-7160 F
(416) 203-8324 www.woodbull.ca
-
15 October 2007
2. The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the objectives of
the Official Plan, specifically the Urban Resewe designation. The
proposed severance does not jeopardize any future Area Study
process concerning the comprehensive and logical planning of the
area.
The proposed Consent to Sever satisfies the permitted reasons to
sever identified in the Official Plan. The lots which are now
fanned would all continue to be used for farming operations in the
interim, until an Area Study is completed and future development
proposed.
The proposed Consent to Sever conforms to the objectives of the
Agricultural Land Consent policies in the Official Plan. The
severance does not further fragment farm land given that: (i) the
Subject Property is presently physically divided; (ii) much of the
Subject Property is occupied by wooded and wetland areas; and (iii)
the estate of John Aarts parcel is presently below the minimum lot
area provisions for agricultural lots. Most of the lot fabric in
this part of London is less than 40 hectares in size.
3.
4.
5. The proposed Consent to Sever meets the severance criteria
and applicable policies of the Agricultural designation of the
Official Plan.
We enclose herewith the requisite appeal form and a cheque in
the amount of $125.00, payable to the Minister of Finance, being
the required appeal filing fee.
Should you require any additional information please contact the
undersigned.
Yours very truly,
Wood Bull LLP-
I Dennis H. Wood Encl.
- 2 -
