Body: Planning Committee Type: Document Meeting: Committee Date: 2018 Collection: Agenda Attachments Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Item Attachments/Agenda Item/2018/April/Mr. Joe Gallivan , Director of Planning and Economic Development will provide the Planning Advisory Committee with his regular Directors briefing./Director of Planning and Economic Development Briefing.pdf)
Document Text
Planning Briefing Planning Advisory Committee 9 April 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Ontario Municipal Board Reform •
Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 – Bill 139
•
Now In Effect – April 3rd, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Non-Conforming Use vs. Non-Complying Structure
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 Planning Act – Section 34 (Zoning By-laws) Excepted lands and buildings (9) No by-law passed under this section applies, (a) to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the bylaw if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose ;
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The position of the Township is that . . . a legal noncomplying structure is not expressly protected by s.34(9)(a) of the Planning Act and … therefore (the Township) possesses the authority to regulate legal non-complying structures without restriction.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Township submits that it has the ability to pass the ZBLA as part of its powers to regulate buildings and that it conforms to the OP policies that restrict waterfront development within the 30 m (waterfront) setback in order to protect public interest in water quality, environmental protection and the aesthetic character of waterfront areas.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “As the new wording would apply, whatever existing right an owner might have had to continue the use of a legal noncompliant building, where it exists in the 30 m setback, terminates immediately at the point in time that the owner desires to replace more than 50% of the load-bearing walls.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Board … views the impact of the amendment as a substantial alteration of the rights of shoreline property owners, with the practical impact of sterilizing and downzoning properties with frontages of less than 30m….”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Board … views the impact of the amendment as a substantial alteration of the rights of shoreline property owners, with the practical impact of sterilizing and downzoning properties with frontages of less than 30m….”
“… unilaterally stripping property owners of dwellings and structures within the 30m buffer of their continuing right of use of these legal non-complying dwellings and structures.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “At the heart of this issue . . . is whether the protection of the rights afforded to legal non-conforming uses … includes legal non-complying building and structures or instead applies only to safeguard rights relating to legal non-conforming uses of property.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Township maintains that the protected grandfathering right granted to a property owner is the right (to) use the property and buildings, and not the building itself.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Board is of the view that s. 34(9)(a), as it is drafted,… already encompasses the use of non-complying buildings and thus grants property owners ‘non-complying rights’ similar to ‘non-conforming rights’.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “(The planner representing the appellants) stated that through the course of his career as a planner for over fortyodd years, he and other planners have been unable to fathom any difference between ‘non-conformance’ and ‘noncompliance’.”
“(The planner) was of the opinion that within the planning and development practice in Ontario, the use and application of the terms ‘legal non-conformance’ and ‘legal non-conformity’ are sometimes interchangeable but both are considered to be connected to the concept of ‘use’.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “The Board finds (the planner’s) assertion to be both logical and persuasive and agrees that the presence and location of a dwelling within a prohibited area cannot be disassociated from the use of that dwelling in the prohibited area.” “The Board supports … the opinion that generally, in planning, legal non-conforming uses and legal noncomplying uses have both been considered part of the broad concept of grandfathered ‘uses’ and often referred to as such.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “…(A)ll owners who use legal non-complying buildings and structures on their lands have an acquired right that cannot be modified or taken away. Such rights include the right to demolish and reconstruct a building or structures. Such rights also include the right to seek planning approval to expand or enlarge the legal non-complying building.”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674 “There is no reasonable planning analysis that has been provided that would in any way justify the imposition of the prohibition against voluntary reconstruction of legal nonconforming buildings and …the interference with the acquired rights of shoreline owners and users of legal nonconforming buildings.” APPEAL GRANTED…
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PLANNING IN FRONTENAC (AND COTTAGE COUNTRY)?
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Property Rights supersede:
2014 Provincial Policy Statement
Natural Heritage Flood Hazards Fish Habitat
County and Township Official Plans
Waterfront Protection Lake Character Water Quality
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Planning Comments – legal decision, not a planning decision – planner ’s hearsay opinion at OMB on planning profession’s confusion over ‘non conforming’ and ‘non complying’ accepted as expert opinion evidence.
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Planning Comments – ignores Official Plan policy that clearly defines differences between ‘non conforming’ and ‘non -complying’
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Planning Advice – continue to treat non -conforming uses and non-complying structures as two different circumstances.
– make sure there are distinct policies in Official Plans to make it clear that a municipality treats ‘use’ and ‘structure’ differently.
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Planning Advice – take the high road – absolute property rights should not be used as a shield to defend against good planning policy.
– “business as usual”
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Frontenac Islands – Severance Policy • •
Official Plan Amendment Planning Report – April 9th Township Council • Allow for one additional severance, except for Howe Island • Hold Public Meetings • Short term solution – revisit once Marysville Secondary Plan completed and Official Plan update is underway.
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Central Frontenac draft Official Plan • •
Release Date – May 1st special Council meeting Key Issues: • • • •
Waterfront protection Small scale farming Highway 7 development Vision for Sharbot Lake
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Communal Servicing Study • •
Consulting Team Selected – WSP consultants Technical Advisory Committee Established • First meeting tentatively April 24th
•
Consultation with Developers
Planning Advisory Committee Planning Briefing – April 9th, 2018 Department Work Plan Update • • •
New Planning Position approved by County Council Expected Start Date: June/July Summer Students (?)
Questions ?
