Ned and Lily Krayishnik have lost their appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board to have their property rezoned to allow two residences on a single lot.
On July 17, Puslinch councillors briefly reviewed the decision delivered by Steven Stefanko regarding the property at 6643 Concession 2.
The property is east of Cambridge and south of the Highway 401.
In the OMB report issued by vice-chair Steven Stefanko, he noted the subject land is approximately 11.12 hectares (22.5 acres) in size with 30.5 metres (100 feet) frontage on Concession 2.
The land currently contains both a single detached dwelling and a duplex on the property.
The single detached dwelling was built in 2007 and, according to Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) records is slightly under 3,000 square feet in size. This dwelling is serviced by an individual well and septic system.
The older duplex was built in 1975 and is just under 2,000 square feet in size and is much further back from the Concession Road than the single detached dwelling.
The property in question is within a secondary agricultural area designation in the county official plan and is zoned agricultural.
Only one single detached dwelling is permitted per lot in this zone in Puslinch.
Historical Background
The circumstances which resulted in there being two dwellings on the subject lands date back to 2007 when the applicants acquired the property.
Shortly after acquisition, the applicants submitted a building permit application to construct a new single detached dwelling.
At that time, the township collected a deposit of $5,000 from the applicants to ensure that the 1975 dwelling would be demolished upon completion of the new building.
The receipt issued by the township for the $5,000 stated quite explicitly that it was to “ensure original house comes down, 6643 Concession 2 …” The new single detached home was built but the 1975 dwelling has yet to be demolished.
Following commencement of legal proceedings by the township in April 2012 concerning the occupation of the 1975 dwelling, an Order of the Superior Court of Justice was issued directing that the 1975 home be vacated. Applications to amend the Wellington County official plan and the township zoning bylaw to permit two single detached dwellings were brought by the applicants.
Glen Wellings of Wellings Planning Consultants Inc. argued in support of the amendments proposed by the Krayishniks. In his view, the relief sought is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and is in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) and the official plan.
He suggested that more latitude be given for non-farm uses in the county official plan for Secondary Agricultural Areas and that the use of a second residence will provide an alternate housing type, such as rental housing, without any impact on agriculture or adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
Sarah Wilhelm, a senior planner with the county, provided expert planning evidence in opposition and contended the amendments are not consistent with the PPS, are not in conformity with the growth plan nor the official plan and do not represent good planning and are not in the public interest.
In his analysis Stefanko said the applicant needed to show that the amendments are in conformity with the county official plan.
Residential intensification is being encouraged primarily in urban areas and to a much lesser extent in rural areas and hamlets. Similar properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site do not have a second residence located on them.
“If I were to accede to the arguments advanced by the applicants I would be creating a new character for the area and I am not prepared to do so. “
While residential uses needed for farm help or a garden suite may be allowed” and that an “accessory apartment unit may be established within the main residence on a lot,” neither such use applies to this case, he stated.
Stefanko noted there is a considerable number of properties which would be affected by ruling in favour of the Krayishniks.
“If I approved the amendments, there are no fewer than 1,000 parcels of land outside of settlements, which are five acres or more in size. These lands comprise almost 50,000 acres of land. In my opinion, it is indeed possible that a favourable decision in relation to the amendments would be precedent setting and could generate a number of applications seeking a second residence.”
Stefanko stated that “based on all of the foregoing, what is proposed is not, in my opinion, an appropriate way to intensify within a rural area. Accordingly, it is ordered that the amendments are not approved and the applicants’ appeals are therefore dismissed.”
In regard to the report, councillor Susan Fielding said “I am very pleased with the decision and I think it will be a positive thing for Puslinch. It certainly puts residents on notice that we are going to defend our policies.”
She suggested had the appeal been successful, “it would have created a lot of dissention and planning issues.”
Councillor Wayne Stokley said there was still a time period in which the OMB decision could be appealed.
But he said that with this decision, council needs to look at how it will address the situation once the potential appeal period is over.
Mayor Dennis Lever said it was interesting that the decision also included the sequence of events the Krayishniks had pursued in the ongoing approach for multiple developments on the site.
