Despite losing an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal to keep two residential buildings on one lot, Ned and Lily Krayishnik were back at council with the same request – but this time through a request for an official plan amendment and a change to the Puslinch zoning bylaw.
At the Oct. 17 meeting, planner John Ghent, spoke on behalf of owners Ned and Lily Krayishnik.
The 27-acre property is located at 6643 Concession 2, near Puslinch Lake. Two dwellings sit on the site – neither is visible from the Concession road.
The older home was built in 1975, while the newer home was built in 2007.
Ghent said the area along the south side of Concession 2 is characterized by strip development – the result of previous property severances.
But to keep both residences, Ghent said it is necessary to amend the Wellington County Official Plan and the Puslinch zoning bylaw.
In 2011, the Krayishniks applied to the committee of adjustment for a minor variance to permit both buildings (the older of the two was divided into two rental units).
The application, denied by the township, was appealed by the Krayishniks to the OMB.
That appeal was lost.
The OMB stated the application was not consistent with the plain wording of the official plan which only allows for one home per lot.
Ghent contended the Krayishniks are simply seeking approval to keep a dwelling which has existed in the area for the past 38 years.
He contended that the character of the area would be better off without the creation of a new lot which would further fragment land holdings in the area.
Further he considered the removal of a perfectly good house in the area is an unnecessary waste of resources and of needed rental housing.
He added that four of the neighbours in the immediate vicinity have indicated in writing that they supported this application.
Ghent said if the application was not successful, the house would have to be removed.
This is something Puslinch has already requested – more than once.
Wellington County planner Sarah Wilhelm’s report noted that in 2007, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct a new dwelling on the property.
At that time the Krayishniks also posted a $5,000 security deposit to ensure that the original 1975 dwelling would be demolished – only one dwelling is permitted per lot under the applicable agricultural zone.
But even after the new home was occupied, the original home was not removed.
In 2011, Krayishnik sought various remedies under the Planning Act to legalize the two dwellings.
One, was to rezone for a seniors project which would have not only ratified the existing homes, but added five more.
The application was later withdrawn and followed by a minor variance application.
The application request was to “maintain the second residence as a leasehold residence.”
At a public hearing, the applicant’s agent confirmed that there were in fact three residential units on the property comprised of the 2007 dwelling, and the 1975 dwelling which contained two rental units.
Further, the conversion of the 1975 single detached dwelling into two residential units was done without a building permit.
In 2012, the township’s solicitor obtained a court order that the lower level apartment be vacated on or before July 1, 2012 and the upper level be vacated before Sept. 1 , 2012 (applicable to the 1975 dwelling).
When Puslinch Chief Building Official (CBO) Robert Kelly inspected the property Oct. 2, 2012 the lower level was vacant and unoccupied.
The upper level was still furnished.
The county official plan includes provisions for accessory residential uses needed for farm help or a garden suite, provided they are established near the farm buildings.
The two dwellings on the Krayishnik property do not fall within those accessory residential use categories.
While Krayishnik requested to keep the 1975 dwelling as a single detached dwelling, it currently contains an illegal second unit.
Councillor Jerry Schmidt referred to the 2007 building permit for the newer home.
“There was a $5,000 deposit made by the owners in respect to an agreement to demolish the 1975 house.”
Ghent said he was unaware what the deposit to the township was for.
“However, I believe it was understood it was to secure the demolition of the second building.”
Schmidt said the 1975 building was converted into a two unit building.
Ghent agreed the 1975 building was operating as a duplex.
“But only one family is living there now.”
Schmidt also wanted to know whether the renovations met the building code.
Ghent did not know.
Councillor Ken Roth questioned why there were still people living in the 1975 building despite the court order for the property to be completely vacated by Sept. 1.
Ghent understood that despite the court order it would still be considered satisfactory to have one family still living in the house.
Roth said the court order was clear, and the CBO inspection a month later indicated the upper unit was occupied.
“Clearly the owner has no intention of following any rules, regulations or bylaws.
“This whole thing has been a game of deception right from the start.”
Roth agreed there was likely nothing wrong with the 1975 house.
But when the application was made to build the 2007 home an agreement was made, and the “township was deceived right from the beginning.
“It is just despicable.”
Councillor Wayne Stokley shared similar concerns.
He said Puslinch is working with the one lot, one house principal.
To allow this would set a precedent for the township and the county, Stokley said.
“This will open up a real can of worms. I’m definitely opposed to increasing the number of homes on a single lot based on the regulations and rulings we have at this point.”
Ghent doubted this move would create any precedent in the township since neither home can be seen from the public road.
Stokley countered the situation is not that unique in Puslinch as council has dealt with the matter of more than one home on a lot before.
“It will continue to happen. I believe council should deal with the planning application based on its merits, not because (Krayishnik) made a commitment at one time and changed his mind.”
Roth clarified that without that original commitment, Krayishnik never would have been allowed to build the new house in 2007.
Councillor Susan Fielding said she’d made her position clear in the past.
“I feel this is not appropriate.”
She also took exception to Ghent’s comments regarding the county official plan.
Fielding said that intensification is directed to urban areas – this is totally rural.
“I think you are skirting around the issue and I don’t believe this is appropriate.”
She added that if council allowed this, there would be numerous requests.
“Everyone would want a couple of houses. They are a great income generator.”
She also pointed out on the original receipt, it does state in writing that the original 1975 house was to be removed.
“I don’t agree the terms should be changed because that was the premise the permit was based upon. I don’t see why we need to change our rules. If you make a promise, you keep a promise.”
Mayor Dennis Lever agreed with his councillors.
“I do not support this application.”
He was very concerned that court orders were issued to vacate the premises – and not abided by. Lever said it was understood the older home would be demolished when the new one was built. Not only did that not happen, but the old house was converted into a duplex, without a building permit or inspections to ensure the property was safe.
He said to Ghent “you are putting a lot of credence into the fact it cannot be seen from the roadway, I cannot support that.”
Lever said he could not imagine what else could occur in the township, using the justification that “if it can’t be seen from the road, it might be okay.”
