Rulings by Mapleton’s Committee of Adjustment appear to have cleared the way for three local families to build homes on properties they own on Wellington Road 10 near Moorefield.
The three properties have been at the centre of a dispute over changes to Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) provisions in the township’s new comprehensive zoning bylaw.
Between the spring of 2011 and August of 2012, three couples, Barb and Gary Huber, Chris and Brittany Huber and Dennis and Tiffany Gleeson, purchased lots on Wellington Road 10.
The lots, created in the 1970s are within MDS 1 range of an unoccupied livestock barn on the property of Alwyn and Lori Woodham. However Mapleton’s comprehensive zoning bylaw waives MDS 1 requirements for existing lots that are less than 9.9 acres. The bylaw was originally passed in July of 2010, but did not come into effect until June of 2012 due to an OMB appeal on an unrelated matter.
The committee of adjustment heard submissions on the applications at a meeting in December and deferred the matters to Jan. 9 for further information and deliberation.
On Jan. 9, the committee granted the minor variance applications for the properties owned by Chris and Brittany Huber and Dennis and Tiffany Gleeson. In these cases, the couples have stated they consolidated the smaller lots they had purchased, on the advice of township and county planning staff, later learning the township would not consider the consolidated lots “existing” at the time of the passage of the new zoning bylaw.
“They told us we had to put them together and that’s what we did and now we’re in trouble for it,” stated Brittany Huber.
However the committee ruled the requested variances were indeed minor in nature, would result in “appropriate” land use and comply with the general purpose and intent of both the county’s official plan and the township’s zoning bylaw. Committee members Floyd Schieck, Kay Ayres and Peg Schieck voted in favor of allowing the variances, while the fourth member of the committee, Carl Israel, was opposed.
The committee denied Barb and Gary Huber’s application for a minor variance on their properties, which have not been consolidated. The committee noted the couple’s three lots should be consolidated and dealt with in a single application.
The committee also indicated that “one of the lots is usable and there is no need for the relief requested.” At the Dec. 12 committee of adjustment meeting, Gary Huber acknowledged he could build on one of the lots as is, but indicated a permit issued for the smaller-sized lot would not allow him to build a house as large as he would like to.
Regarding this application, the committee also stated, “a new application showing clear intentions should be submitted.”
Floyd Schieck, Peg Schieck and Israel supported a resolution to deny the application.
During discussion on Chris and Brittany Huber’s application, Wellington County Planner Mark Van Patter argued allowing any of the lots to be built on would have a “very minor” impact on the possibility of the future expansion of farming operations on the Woodham property.
Van Patter said the Woodhams would still be able to increase their operation from 583 swine feeders up to 658 feeders and meet the MDS 2 setback.
“At this point, the urban boundary (of Moorefield) limits further development, unless a minor variance was to be given,” he stated.
Lawyer Patrick Kraemer, who represented the Woodhams at the meeting, argued the requested minor variances did not meet the intended purpose of the zoning bylaw, which “clearly says the building has to meet the MDS requirements.
“There is an exemption for existing lots, but the township’s solicitor clearly says these are not existing lots. This is not about the Woodhams’ barn and their ability to expand. It has to do with these particular applications for building a house in a rural area,” Kraemer argued.
Kraemer said basing the decision to allow the lots to be built on the limitations placed on the Woodham barn by the proximity of the Moorefield urban boundary would be, in effect, “moving out the Moorefield urban boundary without first having a comprehensive review.”
Mike Downey, a local nutrient management planner, spoke against allowing the proposed developments, stating that MDS regulations are “a proven tool that works.
“When we vary from that, that’s when we have problems,” said Downey, “I would implore you and plead with you to respect 42 years of research and hard data.”
Downey stated he was appearing at the meeting in his professional capacity, and not his role as a member of Mapleton Township council.
At its Dec. 11 meeting, Mapleton council filed objections to all the requests for minor variances, contending they were not minor in nature and did not meet MDS 1 requirements and also citing incomplete application forms and a lack of verification of MDS distances provided.
When the issue was first raised by the Woodhams at a council meeting on Sept. 25, all the members of Mapleton council who were in office at the time the comprehensive zoning bylaw was passed said they were unaware the new bylaw would result in the waiver of MDS requirements on existing small rural lots.
The Mapleton bylaw was developed over a period of about two years and included many changes, said planner Linda Redmond in an interview with the Advertiser at that time.
“At the end of the day there were a number of changes and we did go through the bylaw in detail,” she stated in the interview.
“I understand that council didn’t understand it (the MDS waiver) was in there. I expect someday it will come out why,” commented Israel at the Jan. 9 meeting.
Van Patter explained the MDS waiver for existing lots was included in the bylaw because the general planning view is that owners of legally created lots should have a right to build on them.
“At some point in time, someone created these lots legally according to the laws in place at that time and I guess the question is do you respect those laws?” said Van Patter.
The committee of adjustment decisions are subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board until Jan. 29.
Lori Woodham told the Advertiser she and her husband are “disappointed” with the decision, but have not decided if they will launch an appeal or take any further action.
